Mrs Tyldesley complained that she had been paid less than a male comparator. The employer said the reason for this was that the comparator understood and was committed to the concept of total quality management. The tribunal had found that in relying on a s.1(3) defence the employer had to show, in addition to their being a variation genuinely due to a material factor which was not the difference in sex, the difference was objectively justified.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. It was not necessary in order to establish the defence to show objective justification unless the factor relied on was one which affected a considerably higher proportion of women than men, so as to be indirectly discriminatory and thus tainted by sex discrimination. Thus, it followed that it was sufficient if the employer genuinely believed (even if mistaken and even if the belief was not reasonable) that the factor was material: ‘the industrial tribunal erred in law in directing itself that the explanation for the difference in pay had to be objectively justified. It was sufficient in law that the explanation itself caused the difference or was a sufficient influence to be significant and relevant, whether or not that explanation was objectively justified.’
Judges:
Mummery J
Citations:
[1995] UKEAT 1044 – 93 – 2303, [1996] IRLR 395
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209035