This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Case round-up: indirectly discriminatory pay schemes; and agreeing to a reduced tribunal panel

This report relates to 2 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    Dehaney v Brent Mind and another [2003] All ER (D) 444 (Oct) CA (0 other reports)

  • expand

    Health & Safety Executive v Cadman [2004] IRLR 29 EAT (2 other reports)

    • Equal pay: No need for specific justification of length of service criterion

      Date:
      5 March 2004

      In Health & Safety Executive v Cadman, the EAT holds that, where a woman claims equal pay on the basis that she is paid less than her longer-serving male comparators doing work rated as equivalent, the employer is not required to produce specific justification for using length of service as a pay criterion in circumstances where it was distinguishing between full-time workers.

    • Service-related pay system not unlawful

      Date:
      1 January 2004

      In Health and Safety Executive v Cadman (22 October 2003), the EAT holds that length of service as a criterion in a pay system did not require specific justification so as to establish a genuine material factor defence to an equal pay claim, as length of service was generally objectively justified.

Case round-up from Eversheds, covering: indirectly discriminatory pay schemes; and agreeing to a reduced tribunal panel.