header-logo header-logo

19 March 2009
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Case law , Discrimination , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-detail

Discrimination

Gibson v Sheffield City Council [2009] All ER (D) 133 (Mar)

An employer is not required to provide objective justification for the pay differential between the female claimants and their male comparators where he shows that the difference in treatment is not “tainted by sex” (following Surtees v Middlesborough County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 885; [2008] IRLR 776), [2008] All ER (D) 386 (Jul).

Where the employer identifies some particular and specific factor which he contends caused the difference in pay but which is applied only to a predominantly male group, it will be sex-tainted unless he can show that the factor applied only so as to benefit the male group but for nondiscriminatory reasons.

If, but only if, the employer cannot show that the reason was not due to the difference of sex, he must show objective justification for the disparity between the woman’s contract and the man’s contract (see also Hartlepool Borough Council v Dolphin [2009] IRLR 168).

Issue: 7361 / Categories: Case law , Discrimination , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll