header-logo header-logo

Maternity challenges fail

28 May 2019
Issue: 7842 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail
Employers who enhance maternity pay for women do not discriminate against men taking shared parental leave at lower rates, the Court of Appeal has held.

The court held there was ‘nothing unusual’ about the employers’ policies, in Ali v Capita; Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2019] EWCA Civ 900.

In Ali, women were entitled to maternity pay of up to 39 weeks, with 14 weeks at full pay followed by 25 weeks of lower rate statutory maternity pay. Parents taking shared parental leave received statutory shared parental pay only. Mr Ali claimed direct discrimination, arguing only the first two weeks of compulsory maternity leave are necessary while the rest of maternity leave is a choice about providing care.

In Hextall, women were entitled to 18 weeks full pay followed by 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay whilst those on shared parental leave were only paid at statutory rates. Mr Hextall argued his employer’s policy indirectly discriminated against men.

However, the court unanimously rejected both appellants’ arguments.

Jenny Arrowsmith, partner at Irwin Mitchell, who acted for Capita, said: ‘Parliament has made a statutory exception which gives special treatment to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.

‘That special treatment is, by definition, not available to anyone other than a birth mother, which means the partners of birth mothers are not discriminated against if they do not receive enhanced benefits for taking leave to care for their newborn. This decision will be welcomed by employers that pay higher rates to women on maternity leave than to parents on different types of family leave.

‘It’s also good news for women. Had the decision gone the other way, employers may have reduced their maternity pay to statutory rates because they could not afford to equalise pay rates to those taking shared parental leave.’

Issue: 7842 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll