header-logo header-logo

26 March 2021
Issue: 7927 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court grants step forward on Asda equal pay case

Asda shop floor workers can compare their roles to those of their colleagues in distribution centres, the Supreme Court has held in an equal pay case

Equal pay claimants must be able to compare themselves to a valid comparator, and the comparator must be a real person employed by the same, or an associated employer. If the comparators are at another establishment (cross-establishment comparators) then Equality Act 2010 ‘common terms’ must apply.

The claimants, who were predominantly women, seek compensation on the basis that in the six-year period prior to commencing proceedings in 2014, they received less pay than a valid comparator for the same work. The cross-establishment comparators chosen are employees at Asda’s distribution depots, who are predominantly men.

Asda applied for dismissal of the claims on the basis of lack of common terms, since the retail and distribution centres were at separate locations.

However, the court dismissed the supermarket’s appeal, in a unanimous ruling, Asda Stores v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10.

Delivering judgment, Lady Arden said the case was ‘important because otherwise an employer could avoid equal pay claims by allocating certain groups of employees to separate sites so that they can have different terms even where this is discriminatory’.

Leigh Day solicitors, which is representing the 44,000 workers, said the claimants will now argue the roles are of equal value and, once that issue is decided, the case will move to the question of whether Asda can establish a reason, other than sex discrimination, why the roles are not paid equally.

Leigh Day also represents clients from Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Morrisons, the Co-op and Next in similar equal pay cases, which may be impacted by the judgment.

Rhona Darbyshire, employment partner at law firm Cripps Pemberton Greenish, said: ‘This is a monumental decision and the ramifications are significant not only for the 45,000 ASDA employees who brought the claim but also for the hundreds of thousands more employees who work for similar businesses. The likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Morrisons and Co-op all have similar claims waiting in the wings with a combined estimated value of 8 billion. This decision will be a real boost of confidence to the claimants and to any potential future claimants thinking of bringing a similar equal pay cases. Hopefully this decision will also encourage businesses in the private sector to reflect carefully on the true meaning of equal pay for equal work.’

Susan Harris, legal director at GMB, which is supporting many of the workers, said the decision was ‘a massive victory for Asda’s predominantly women shop floor workforce’.

Issue: 7927 / 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

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
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
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

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

back-to-top-scroll