The employees appealed against dismissal of their claims of sex discrimination, saying that the employer’s explanation of the pay differential was not adequate.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had failed to distinguish between what was given namely an account and explanation of the differences, and a non-discriminatory reason for the differences whuch had not been given. It was for the employer to provide objective justification for the differences. The case of Armstrong was to be limited to particular circumstances.
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 63, [2010] ICR 708, [2010] IRLR 311
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396711