EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material Factor Defence and Justification
Two roles (‘IIO’ and ‘SIIO’) amalgamated into a new role (‘SIO’), on the basis that affected employees retain their existing points on the relevant pay scale – Following amalgamation the two highest-paid of the eleven ISOs are the only two males, both ex-SIIOs – Common ground that difference between the pay of the IIOs and the SIIOs pre-amalgamation was not discriminatory – Tribunal find that the differential is indirectly discriminatory and that objective justification had not been proved
HELD:
(1) The evidence did not justify a finding of prima facie indirect discrimination on either an Enderby or a PCP basis; and accordingly it was unnecessary for the Respondent to prove objective justification
(2) Even if justification were required it had been proved – A pay protection policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim provided that, as here, it did not incorporate past discrimination
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0123 – 10 – 1803
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Haq and Others v The Audit Commission CA 6-Dec-2012
Not upheld . .
Cited – Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) SC 5-Apr-2017
The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.430682