EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence
The claimant police officers received less than their male comparator doing like work. The reason was that he worked shifts involving night work and received a special payment (effectively a bonus) for this, but they did not work those hours because they were incompatible with their child care responsibilities. The Tribunal held that it was a legitimate objective to reward night work, but that the Chief Constable could have paid the claimants as though they had done night work, even though they had not. It would not have been a significant expenditure and would have eliminated the discrimination. The EAT upheld the Chief Constable’s appeal and held that the Tribunal had misunderstood the nature of the justification defence and had erred in concluding that the differential was not reasonably justified.
Judges:
Elias P J
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0007 – 07 – 1112, [2008] ICR 505
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Blackburn and Another v West Midlands Police CA 6-Nov-2008
The claimants, female police officers, complained that male officers had received priority payments where they had received none. The defendant said that the payments were justified in achieving a proper aim, namely the encouragement of night . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261967