header-logo header-logo

28 May 2019
Issue: 7842 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Maternity challenges fail

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll