Equal value update
This report relates to 11 case(s)
-
expand disabled
Alabaster v Woolwich plc and Secretary of State for Social Security [2002] IRLR 420 CA (0 other reports)
-
expand
Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 EAT
(6 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 3 July 2003
In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.
-
- Date:
- 1 June 2003
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
-
- Date:
- 1 June 2003
In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (3 April 2003), the EAT sets out guidance on the correct approach to the burden of proof in equal pay and sex discrimination cases.
-
- Date:
- 1 May 2003
Louise Barton has won her appeal against the employment tribunal's decision in her sex discrimination and equal pay case.
-
- Date:
- 22 April 2003
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: transparency of incentive schemes; and time limits for making discrimination claims.
-
- Date:
- 15 April 2003
The EAT's shrewd ruling over a City bonus claim has wide implications for all employers fighting sex discrimination cases and serves as a warning over transparent pay scales. By Makbool Javid of DLA.
-
expand
Brunnhofer v Bank der Österreichischen Postsparkasse AG [2001] IRLR 571 ECJ
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 2 March 2007
This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.
-
- 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
Glasgow City Council and others v Marshall and others [2000] IRLR 272 HL
(3 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 2 March 2007
This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.
-
- 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.
-
- 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
Jørgensen v Foreningen Af Speciallæger and Sygesikringens Forhandlingsudvalg [2000] IRLR 726 ECJ
(1 other report)
-
- Date:
- 15 May 2000
In order to determine whether a set of provisions governing the exercise of a professional activity were indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex, a court has to make a separate, not an overall, assessment of each of the key provisions, the ECJ rules in Jorgensen v Foreningen af Speciallaeger and Sygesikringens Forhandlingsudvalg.
-
expand
Kells v Pilkington plc [2002] IRLR 693 EAT
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 30 December 2002
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.
-
- Date:
- 1 December 2002
In Kells v Pilkington plc (2 May 2002), the EAT rules that an equal pay applicant can compare her work to that of comparators employed either contemporaneously or in the past, and that there is no time restriction for this purpose on when the comparator was employed on equal work.
-
expand
Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 822 ECJ
(6 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 2 March 2007
This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
- Date:
- 29 October 2002
This week's case round-up looks at equal pay claims.
-
- 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
Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) [2001] IRLR 237 HL
(5 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 2 March 2007
This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
- 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
Robertson and others v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs ET/1701937/01
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 1 July 2003
A London South employment tribunal (Chair: Mr Rideout) holds in Robertson and others v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that cross-department equal pay comparisons are possible.
-
- Date:
- 1 July 2003
Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.
-
expand
South Ayrshire Council v Morton [2002] IRLR 256 CS
(3 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 30 April 2002
Continuing our regular series on the implications of recent significant cases. Sue Nickson, partner and head of employment law at Hammond Suddards Edge, looks at the issues, including equal pay, stress and clear covenants.
-
- Date:
- 15 April 2002
In South Ayrshire Council v Morton, the Inner House of the Court of Session holds that a teacher could compare her pay with an employee in another local authority for the purposes of an equal pay claim.
-
- Date:
- 1 March 2002
In South Ayrshire Council v Morton (14 February 2002), the Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that an equal pay claim does not have to be confined to the claimant's own employer.
-
expand
Wood and others v William Ball Ltd EAT/552/98
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 1 December 1999
In Wood v William Ball Ltd the EAT has ruled that an employment tribunal cannot determine that two jobs are not of equal value without giving the parties an opportunity to adduce their own evidence.
-
- Date:
- 1 November 1999
In Wood and others v William Ball Ltd, the EAT holds that, at the initial hearing of an equal value claim, the employment tribunal should first ask itself whether or not it should commission an independent expert's report.
There have been some
significant developments in the equal value area since our last update. Pressure from the Equal Opportunities
Commission (EOC), the unions and the government itself has put equal pay firmly
back in the media spotlight.
View the full article today
Register to read this article
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in