Equal pay: case law update

This report relates to 27 case(s)

• expand

  Armstrong and others v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust [2006] IRLR 124 CA (1 other report)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:

    3 February 2006

    We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

• expand

  Bailey and others v Home Office [2005] IRLR 369 CA (2 other reports)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:

    3 February 2006

    We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

  • Equal pay: Broad approach to finding prima facie pay discrimination

    Date:

    10 June 2005

    In Bailey and others v Home Office, the Court of Appeal holds that the tribunal was correct to hold that the Home Office was required to show that there was a genuine material factor which was not the difference of sex and which objectively justified the less favourable terms of the claimants' contracts, who had been evaluated as performing work of an equal value to their male comparators, but who were paid at a lower rate.

• expand

  Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] IRLR 240 ECJ (2 other reports)

  • Occupational pensions are pay under EEC law

    Date:

    1 July 1990

    In Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (17 May 1990) EOR32A, the European Court of Justice takes the historic decision that a pension paid under a contracted-out occupational scheme falls within the scope of the directly enforceable prohibition against sex discrimination in Article 119 of the EEC Treaty. Discrimination on grounds of sex by employers in setting pensionable ages and in benefits provided is unlawful from the date of the Court's decision.

  • Sex discrimination: Equality required in occupational pensions

    Date:

    19 June 1990

    The European Court of Justice holds that occupational pensions payable under a contracted-out scheme constitute "pay" under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, and so must be offered to men and women on equal terms.

• expand

  British Road Services Ltd v Loughran [1997] IRLR 92 NICA (2 other reports)

  • Equal pay: Separate collective bargaining defence rejected

    Date:

    15 March 1997

    In British Road Services v Loughran, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal considers the circumstances in which separate pay structures based on different collective bargaining arrangements can constitute a "genuine material factor" defence to an equal pay claim.

  • Separate collective agreements as defence

    Date:

    1 December 1996

    Separate pay structures based on different collective agreements are not a sufficient defence under s. 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 if the applicants are members of a class of which a significant number are female, rules the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in British Road Services Ltd v Loughran and others.

• expand

  Brunnhofer v Bank der Österreichischen Postsparkasse AG [2001] IRLR 571 ECJ (2 other reports)

  • Equal value update

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

  • Equal pay: Objective justification for unequal pay

    Date:

    15 September 2001

    In Brunnhofer v Bank der osterreichischen Postsparkasse AG1 the European Court of Justice rules that in comparing the pay of men and women for the purposes of an equal pay claim, the fact that the employees concerned are classified in the same job category under a collective agreement is not in itself sufficient to lead to a conclusion that they perform the same work or work of equal value.

• expand

  Cadman v Health and Safety Executive [2006] IRLR 969 ECJ (2 other reports)

  • Equal pay: Length of service criterion need not be specifically justified

    Date:

    15 December 2006

    In Cadman v Health and Safety Executive Case C-1705 ECJ, the European Court of Justice held that it is not necessary for an employer to justify use of length of service as a criterion for determining the pay of workers doing work of equal value unless a worker provides evidence that raises serious doubts as to its appropriateness as a basis for determining pay.

  • Length of service justifies pay differentials

    Date:

    1 November 2006

    Where length of service as a criterion for determining pay leads to indirect discrimination, it does not require specific justification by an employer, unless a claimant provides evidence that raises serious doubts about the efficacy of the criterion, holds the European Court of Justice in Cadman v Health and Safety Executive (3 October 2006).

• expand

  Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust v Abbott and others [2006] IRLR 546 CA (1 other report)

  • Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust v Abbott and others

    Date:

    19 May 2006

    In Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust v Abbott and others [2006] IRLR 546 CA, the Court of Appeal in an equal pay case has held that, in choosing a group of employees to act as comparators in a claim of indirect sex discrimination, the whole advantaged group should be chosen where possible and a section of the advantaged group should not be arbitrarily excluded.

• expand disabled

  Dennison v The University College of St Mark and St John & others EAT/0196/06 (0 other reports)
• expand disabled

  Dolphin v Hartlepool Borough Council; Middleton v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] All ER (D) 54 (Aug) EAT (0 other reports)
• expand

  Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health [1993] IRLR 591 ECJ (1 other report)

  • Defences narrowed

    Date:

    1 November 1993

    In Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (27 October 1993) EOR52A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is not sufficient for an employer to show that significant pay differences between female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs arose for non-discriminatory reasons.

• expand

  Glasgow City Council and others v Marshall and others [2000] IRLR 272 HL (3 other reports)

  • Equal value update

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

  • Absence of discrimination conclusive

    Date:

    1 May 2000

    In Glasgow City Council and others v Marshall and others (3 February 2000) EOR91B, the House of Lords rules that an employer who proves the absence of sex discrimination, direct or indirect, is under no obligation to prove a "good" reason for a pay disparity in order to satisfy the defence under the Equal Pay Act.

  • Equal pay: Pay disparity need not be justified in absence of sex discrimination

    Date:

    1 March 2000

    An employer is not obliged to justify a variation in pay or conditions between a woman and men employed on like work, work rated as equivalent or work of equal value if the employer has proved the absence of direct or indirect sex discrimination, holds the House of Lords in Glasgow City Council and others v Marshall and others.

• expand

  Handels- og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund i Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening (acting for Danfoss) [1989] IRLR 532 ECJ (1 other report)

  • EEC law on indirectly discriminatory pay criteria

    Date:

    1 January 1990

    In Handels- og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund i Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening (acting for Danfoss) (17 October 1989) EOR29A, the European Court of Justice holds that where criteria for individual pay increments for men and women employed on equal work disadvantage women on average, the burden is on the employer to show that the criteria are objectively justified and not discriminatory.

• expand disabled

  Harland and Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd v Aon Consulting Financial Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 1778 (Ch) HC (0 other reports)
• expand disabled

  Jeffery & others v (1) Secretary of State for Education (2) Bridgend College EAT/0677/05 (0 other reports)
• expand

  Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 822 ECJ (6 other reports)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:

    3 February 2006

    We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

  • Equal value update

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

  • Equal pay: Transferred workers cannot compare their pay with retained workers

    Date:

    10 January 2003

    Article 141 of the EC Treaty of Rome is not limited to situations where men and women work for the same employer, but it does not cover the situation where pay differences between equal pay claimants and their comparators cannot be attributed to a single source, so that there is no single body responsible for the inequality and which can restore equal treatment, the European Court of Justice holds in Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others.

  • EC: ECJ case law round-up

    Date:

    1 January 2003

    In our latest round-up of decisions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), we look at cases on equal pay, the principle of equal treatment as related to working conditions, the meaning of a transfer for the purposes of the business transfers Directive and, finally, guarantee payments to employees following the insolvency of their employers.

  • Case round-up: equal pay claims

    Date:

    29 October 2002

    This week's case round-up looks at equal pay claims.

  • Cross-employer comparison rejected

    Date:

    1 October 2002

    In Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others (17 September 2002), the European Court of Justice has ruled that former employees of a county council, who are now employed by private contractors, are not entitled to bring an equal pay claim relying on Article 141 of the EC Treaty comparing themselves with current employees of the council whose work had been rated as equivalent to their own.

• expand

  National Power plc v Young [2001] IRLR 32 CA (2 other reports)

  • Equal pay: Six-month limitation period runs from termination of relevant contract

    Date:

    1 December 2000

    An employment tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 if the claimant lodged it within six months of the termination of her contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in National Power plc v Young.

  • Time limit applies to employment not job

    Date:

    1 December 2000

    In National Power plc v Young the Court of Appeal has ruled that the time limit in s. 2(4) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, which provides that an equal pay claim cannot be brought if the applicant has not been "employed in the employment" to which the claim relates within the six months preceding the date of the complaint, does not relate to the particular job on which the woman bases her claim to an equality clause.

• expand

  Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg [1991] IRLR 222 ECJ (1 other report)

  • Doubt cast on service payments

    Date:

    1 July 1991

    In Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (7 February 1991) EOR38A, the European Court of Justice holds that where using service as a pay criterion has a disparate impact upon women, the employer must justify it by showing a relationship between the nature of the work performed and the experience gained by performing the work.

• expand

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and another v Fernandez [2004] IRLR 22 EAT (1 other report)

  • Equal pay: Non-discriminatory factor need not be justified to be "material"

    Date:

    6 February 2004

    In Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and another v Fernandez, the EAT holds that an employer was not required objectively to justify the difference in pay between the complainant and his female comparator, in circumstances where there was no suggestion that the factors relied on by the employer in seeking to establish the "material factor" defence to the equal pay claim were indirectly discriminatory.

• expand disabled

  Potter v North Cumbria Acute NHS Trust ET September 2006 (0 other reports)
• expand

  Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others [2006] IRLR 381 HL (1 other report)

  • Equal pay: Time limit for equal pay claim ran from date of TUPE transfer

    Date:

    3 November 2006

    In Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others [2006] IRLR 381 HL, the House of Lords holds that where a transferred employee has an equal pay claim relating to the transferor's occupational pension scheme, the time limit for bringing the claim runs from the date of the TUPE transfer.

• expand

  Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) [2001] IRLR 237 HL (5 other reports)

  • Equal value update

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

  • Firms likely to face claims for sizeable back payments

    Date:

    21 January 2003

    Government consultation setting a six-year limit for equal pay compensation does not go far enough and is likely to be challenged by the European Court of Justice.

  • Two-year limit on pension claims invalid

    Date:

    1 June 2001

    In Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) the House of Lords has ruled that an employer cannot rely on the two-year limit in s.2(5) of the Equal Pay Act to prevent an applicant from retroactively gaining membership of an occupational pension scheme.

  • Equal pay: Six-month time limit is compatible with Community law

    Date:

    1 March 2001

    In Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) and Fletcher and others v Midland Bank plc (No.2) the House of Lords holds that the six-month limitation period laid down in s.2(4) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 does not breach the principle of equivalence.

  • Part-timers win retroactive pension rights

    Date:

    1 March 2001

    In Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) (8 February 2001), the House of Lords rules that an employer cannot rely on the two-year limit in s.2(5) of the Equal Pay Act to prevent an applicant from retroactively gaining membership of an occupational pension scheme. Part-time workers who were discriminated against in respect of access to a pension scheme can claim membership in respect of a period of employment back to 8 April 1976 or to the date of commencement of employment, whichever is the later, so long as relevant pension contributions are paid by the employer.

• expand disabled

  Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others [2007] IRLR 91 EAT (0 other reports)
• expand

  Robertson and others v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2005] IRLR 363 CA (3 other reports)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:

    3 February 2006

    We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

  • Equal pay: Pay must be set by 'single source' for comparison to be legitimate

    Date:

    25 March 2005

    In Robertson and others v Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Court of Appeal holds that the ECJ case of Lawrence v Regent Office Care sets out the correct approach to equal pay cases under art 141 of the EU Treaty. This states that male and female workers must have their pay and conditions set by a "single source" before they can make comparisons for equal pay purposes under art 141.

  • Case round-up: Equal pay and unfair dismissal

    Date:

    15 March 2005

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering comparators for equal pay and time limits in unfair dismissal cases.

• expand

  Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd [2006] IRLR 4 EAT (3 other reports)

  • Equal pay: Genuine material factor must be justified by objective criteria

    Date:

    17 February 2006

    In Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd, the EAT holds that the employment tribunal erred in finding that the difference between the claimant's pay and that of her comparator was due to a genuine material factor that was not the difference of sex.

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:

    3 February 2006

    We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 February 2006

    Bess Sturman and Richard Port of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.

• expand

  Smith v Avdel Systems Ltd [1994] IRLR 602 ECJ (2 other reports)

  • ECJ rules on pension discrimination

    Date:

    1 December 1994

    The European Court of Justice has handed down its rulings in six cases on issues relating to sex equality and occupational pension schemes in light of the decision in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group EOR32A.

  • Levelling-down permitted

    Date:

    1 November 1994

    In Smith v Avdel Systems Ltd (28 September 1994) EOR58D, the European Court of Justice rules that once equality has been achieved, harmonisation of pension ages can be downwards by increasing the women's age to that of men.

• expand

  Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace and others [1998] IRLR 146 HL (2 other reports)

  • Justification not required for pay difference

    Date:

    1 March 1998

    In Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace and others (22 January 1998) EOR78B, the House of Lords has ruled that employers do not have to objectively justify a pay difference which is not tainted by sex discrimination.

  • Equal pay: Objective justification of pay differential only necessary where explanation is discriminatory

    Date:

    15 February 1998

    In order to establish a "material factor" defence to an equal pay claim, the employer does not have to "justify" the difference in pay unless the factor relied on to explain it is sexually discriminatory, holds the House of Lords in Strathclyde Regional Council and others v Wallace and others.

• expand disabled

  Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc [2006] IRLR 437 EAT (0 other reports)