Kettle Produce Ltd v Ward: EAT 8 Nov 2006

EAT Sex discrimination – Comparison
When a male manager entered the women’s toilets and shouted at a woman on her break, the correct question which should be asked is this: would the Respondent, in the form of a female manager, with the same robust management style as this manager, treat a male cleaner having the same sensitivity as the Claimant, believed to be skiving, in the same way as he treated the Claimant.
The Employment Tribunal failed to construct the correct comparator. EAT substituted its Judgment and set aside the finding of sex discrimination.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0016 – 06 – 0811, UKEATS/0016/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(a) 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedShamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
CitedMacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
CitedMacdonald v Ministry of Defence EAT 19-Sep-2000
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248311