header-logo header-logo

A shared responsibility: compare & contrast

25 July 2019 / Shane Crawford
Issue: 7850 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Do low rates of statutory pay for shared parental leave discriminate against the non-birthing partner? Shane Crawford analyses the arguments

  • The Court of Appeal has made clear that the non-birthing partner of a mother who wishes to take shared parental leave is not being discriminated against because of his sex directly or indirectly.

The Court of Appeal has provided some clear guidance about the issue of appropriate comparator in the context of lower rates of pay for shared parental leave when compared to contractual maternity leave pay (Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd (Working Families intervening); Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police v Hextall (Working Families intervening); Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (Working Families intervening)  [2019] EWCA Civ 900, [2019] All ER (D) 18 (Jun)).

The issue raised by non-birthing partners when seeking shared parental leave is that employers regularly pay only the statutory rate of pay, not the contractual rate of pay. The argument is that had the non-birthing partner taken maternity leave he or she would

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll