Plaintiff was paid less than her male colleague despite comparable qualifications and experience, and therefore brought a claim under EqPA.
Defendant raised a defence under s.1(3), saying that the ‘material difference’ was that while Plaintiff had been recruited through the NHS and was therefore placed on the appropriate pay scale, higher pay was offered to those recruited from the private sector as an incentive for them to join, such as her colleague.
HL held that this was a material difference within s.1(3) and therefore no claim could be brought within EqPA.
‘Material’ difference = one that’s ‘significant and relevant’. This goes beyond merely the question of personal attributes, but court must look at all circumstances.
He also suggests that indirect discrimination, as well as direct discrimination is covered by EqPA, though both are subject to the material difference defence under s.1(3).
His reasoning also says that judgments of the ECJ, on when a breach of Article 141 is justified, must be read into determining what constitutes ‘material difference’ (he quotes Bilka extensively).
NB slight naivety of Lord Keith - he describes it as simply an ‘accident’ that the male prosthetist was recruited from the private sector and therefore higher paid, when in fact all those recruited from private sector and on higher pay were men, whereas all those who came through the NHS internally were women and therefore lower paid.
A collection of the best LPC Employment notes the director of Oxbridge ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Employment Law | Indirect Discrimination Harassment And Et1 3 Forms Notes (38 pages) |
Labour Law | Labour Discrimination Notes (64 pages) |