header-logo header-logo

05 March 2015 / Julian Yew
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Opinion , Family , Employment
printer mail-detail

Shared parental leave: spot the difference

nlj_7643_julianyew

Julian Yew predicts a battle of the sexes in the courts

Shared parental leave (SPL) comes into force on 5 April 2015. The idea behind SPL is that a mother would be able to share 50 weeks of her maternity leave with the father after their child is born. Businesses who are considering operating an enhanced shared parental pay (ShPP) scheme have to evaluate if a decision to offer mothers enhanced pay (whether based on their original enhanced maternity entitlement or otherwise) but not to fathers, would amount to sex discrimination. The government has made it clear in its Employers' Technical Guide to Shared Parental Leave & Pay (December 2014) that there is no gender discrimination if men and women (for example, those in a civil partnership or same sex marriage) on paternity leave and by extension SPL, receive statutory payment only. However, if an employer operates an enhanced SPL payment policy, it would be sex discrimination if female employees receive enhanced pay but not male employees as they are on

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll