Regulations debarred a claim after a certain time even where the delay had been because of a deliberate concealment of information by an employer.
Held: Availability of other means of redress was not sufficient to displace this rule.
Advocate General Leger said: ‘an action brought under the Equal Pay Act and an action brought under Article [141] of the Treaty are not merely similar, as the United Kingdom Government maintains: their scope is identical, that is to say, they amount to one and the same form of action.’
ECJ Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Article 119 of the EC Treaty – Directive 75/117/EEC – Remedies for breach of the prohibition on discrimination – Pay arrears – Domestic legislation placing a two-year limit on awards for the period prior to the institution of proceedings – Similar domestic actions.
Advocate General Leger
Times 10-Dec-1998, C-326/96, [1999] All ER (EC) 1, [1998] EUECJ C-326/96, [1999] CEC 3, [1998] ECR I-7835, [1999] 2 CMLR 363, [1999] ICR 521, [1999] IRLR 36
Bailii
European
Citing:
Reference from – Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd EAT 6-Nov-1996
. .
See Also – Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd EAT 11-Oct-1996
A party sought to be joined to the case order to appeal it to the Curt of Appeal, and in turn to the European Court of Justice to challenge implementation of a European directive.
Held: Leave to join refused, but leave allowed to appeal . .
Cited by:
Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc HL 26-Feb-1998
‘Employment’ in context of a sex discrimination claim referred to a current employment contract even in context of there having been a series of repeated contracts of employment. The question was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
At ECJ – Levez etc v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No 2) EAT 1-Oct-1999
The restriction on the awards of compensation for sex discrimination to payments in respect of a period of two years prior to the claim was unlawful. Claims of other natures were not so limited, and this could not be supported, since it was in . .
Cited – Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another CA 3-May-2005
The claimant sought increased maternity pay. Before beginning her maternity leave she had been awarded a pay increase, but it was not backdated so as to affect the period upon which the calculation of her average pay was based. The court made a . .
Cited – Slack and Others v Cumbria County Council and Another CA 3-Apr-2009
The court was asked when the six month’s limit for beginning equal pay proceedings began. The new section 2ZA set the qualifying date as ‘the date falling six months after the last day on which the woman was employed in the employment.’ The problem . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 7-Feb-2014
The claimant challenged the Regulations and Orders charging for the laying of complaints at Employment Tribunals, saying they were mistaken and discriminatory.
Held: The challenge failed. The new Order was not in breach of European Union . .
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.161962