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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll