This is a preview. To continue reading, register for free access now. Register now or Log in

Sex discrimination: New pay terms for employees did not amount to indirectly discriminatory "requirement"

This report relates to 1 case(s)

Key points

In Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust v Reynolds the EAT holds:

  • An employment tribunal was wrong to find that an employee who was employed on the terms applicable to all those doing his work who, like him, were appointed after 1993 when the NHS Trust employer came into existence, suffered indirect sex discrimination.
  • The tribunal was wrong to find that the trust's policy to apply less favourable pay terms to post-1993 employees amounted to the application of an indirectly discriminatory requirement or condition, such that the proportion of men who could comply with it was considerably smaller than the proportion of women who could comply.
  • The employee's equal pay claim had already failed on the ground that the variation between his pay and that of his three female comparators who had been employed pre-1993 was due to a genuine material factor not connected with sex - that is, the trust's policy that new terms as to pay would be applied equally to all theatre support workers employed since 1993.