GMB was negotiating pay deals for its members with a LA. It prioritised future pay and pay protection for disadvantaged groups in the deal, rather than seeking full compensation for past inequalities in pay (often this amounted to 0-25% of what could be achieved in successful EqPA claims). Ps (female employees of the LA) argued that this constituted indirect discrimination under s.1(2)(b) SDA 1975. CA agreed that this was indirect discrimination, and that there was no objective justification for the ID.
Kay LJ: Is there objective justification? Proportionality had to be employed to demonstrate that any objective aims, unconnected with sex, would provide justification. Here the aims were to avoid privatisations, avoid job losses, avoid cuts in hours, avoid or minimise losers and in so far as losers were inevitable, so as to get the best possible pay protection.