Updated to include information on Asda Stores v Brierley and others, in which the EAT held that supermarket employees were able to compare their work with that of depot workers.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers disparities in pay after the amalgamation of senior and junior roles.
Definition from the XpertHR glossary.
An employment tribunal has held that nine female inspection support officers were unlawfully paid less than their two male comparators employed on like work after a restructuring.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal erred in its approach to justification in an equal pay claim.
The Court of Appeal has held that, in assessing whether or not there is a difference in pay that disadvantages women, there is no requirement to focus only on the advantaged group.
In British Airways plc v Grundy and others, the EAT holds that the tribunal had wrongly focused on the gender composition of the disadvantaged group in making findings of disparate impact.
In Kells v Pilkington plc, the EAT holds that there is no rule of law precluding an equal pay claimant from relying on the circumstances of his or her chosen comparator more than six years before the claim is brought, although there may be considerable evidential problems in showing that any pay differential is related solely to gender in such cases.
In Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse, the European Court of Justice rules that psychotherapists with a degree in psychology, most of whom were women, did not do "the same work", within the meaning of Article 119 (now, after amendment, Article 141) of the Treaty of Rome, as higher-paid and predominantly male doctors employed as psychotherapists.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to equal pay for like work.