header-logo header-logo

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

A shared responsibility: compare & contrast

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

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll