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)

  • Equal pay and sex discrimination: New guidance on burden of proof in sex discrimination claims

    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.

  • Case round-up

    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.

  • Guidance on burden of proof

    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.

  • EAT slams City culture of pay secrecy

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Louise Barton has won her appeal against the employment tribunal's decision in her sex discrimination and equal pay case.

  • Case round-up: transparency of incentive schemes and time limits for making discrimination claims

    Date:

    22 April 2003

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: transparency of incentive schemes; and time limits for making discrimination claims.

  • Burden of proof for pay equality shifts to firms

    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)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    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.

  • 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

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

  • Equal pay: case law update

    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.

  • 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

  Jørgensen v Foreningen Af Speciallæger and Sygesikringens Forhandlingsudvalg [2000] IRLR 726 ECJ (1 other report)

  • Sex discrimination: Considerations of budget alone cannot justify discrimination

    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)

  • Equal pay: No six-year comparator bar to bringing equal pay claim

    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.

  • No time limit on equal pay comparison

    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)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    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.

  • 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: 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

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

  • Equal pay: case law update

    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.

  • 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

  Robertson and others v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs ET/1701937/01 (2 other reports)

  • Pay comparisons are possible across government departments

    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.

  • Case digest

    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)

  • On appeal: Equal pay, stress and clear covenants

    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.

  • Equal pay: Teacher can compare pay with that in another authority

    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.

  • Wide scope for equal pay comparison

    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)

  • Parties must be given opportunity

    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.

  • Equal pay: "Hopeless" equal value claims are not bound to be dismissed

    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.