header-logo header-logo

Employment—Equal pay

10 January 2014
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Wallace and another v Calmac Ferries Ltd UKEATS/0014/13/BI, [2013] All ER (D) 242 (Dec)

The proceedings concerned the first case relating to the equal terms and conditions, in particular in respect of pay, under the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the starting point was for the employer to show that the difference between the man’s pay and the woman’s pay was because of a material factor. It was clear from the terms of s 69(2) of the Act that the burden of proof, which was the subject matter of the Nelson decision, was clearly set out in that sub-section. Where a pay disparity arose for examination, it was not sufficient for an employer to show why one party was paid as one party was. The statute required an explanation for the difference, which inevitably involved considering why the claimants were paid as they were, on the one hand, and separately, why the comparator was paid as he was. Discrimination claims in particular should not be struck out where they involved a core disputed fact.

 

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—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll