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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll