header-logo header-logo

Shared parental leave: spot the difference

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

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