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

Taylor Rose—nine promotions

Taylor Rose—nine promotions

Leadership strengthened across core practice areas with nine new partners

Fieldfisher—Rebecca Maxwell

Fieldfisher—Rebecca Maxwell

Real estate team welcomes partner inBirmingham

Ward Hadaway—14 trainee solicitors

Ward Hadaway—14 trainee solicitors

Firm strengthens commitment to nurturing future legal talent

NEWS
Government plans for offender ‘restriction zones’ risk creating ‘digital cages’ that blur punishment with surveillance, warns Henrietta Ronson, partner at Corker Binning, in this week's issue of NLJ
Louise Uphill, senior associate at Moore Barlow LLP, dissects the faltering rollout of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 in this week's NLJ
Judgments are ‘worthless without enforcement’, says HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, senior circuit judge and chair of the Civil Justice Council’s enforcement working group. In this week's NLJ, she breaks down the CJC’s April 2025 report, which identified systemic flaws and proposed 39 reforms, from modernising procedures to protecting vulnerable debtors
Writing in NLJ this week, Katherine Harding and Charlotte Finley of Penningtons Manches Cooper examine Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court ruling that narrowed what counts as matrimonial property, and its potential impact upon claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
In this week's NLJ, Dr Jon Robins, editor of The Justice Gap and lecturer at Brighton University, reports on a campaign to posthumously exonerate Christine Keeler. 60 years after her perjury conviction, Keeler’s son Seymour Platt has petitioned the king to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy, arguing she was a victim of violence and moral hypocrisy, not deceit. Supported by Felicity Gerry KC, the dossier brands the conviction 'the ultimate in slut-shaming'
back-to-top-scroll