EAT Sex Discrimination : Comparison – Justification
The Employment Tribunal did not err in deciding that a provision criterion or practice (‘PCP’) which required train drivers employed by the First Respondent to work at least 50% of their roster and on a number of Saturdays put women at a particular disadvantage. They correctly based their decision on the relative numbers and proportions of the First Respondent’s women and men train drivers who could and could not comply with the PCP. The more general observations about why they thought that few women applied to the First Respondent to become train drivers and on women’s caring responsibilities did not vitiate their conclusion which was based upon figures and statistics of train drivers in post. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Homer [2012] ICR 704 applied.
The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that Equality Act 2010 section 19(2)(c) was satisfied as the PCP had put the Claimant at a particular disadvantage. The statutory test of that provision was different from its predecessor in Sex Discrimination Act 1975 section 1(1)(b)(iii).
The Employment Tribunal erred in considering Equality Act section 19(2)(d). They failed to weigh the legitimate aims of the First Respondent against the discriminatory impact of the PCP rather than their own.
Appeal allowed. Claim remitted to an Employment Tribunal to consider the justification defence.
Slade DBE J
[2016] UKEAT 0331 – 15 – 2807
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567894