Equal Pay

Authorities (22)

• Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ICR 547 [judgment]
  R. Lecourt (President), A.M. Donner, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, M. Sørensen, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, C. Ó Dálaigh, A. Van Houtte (Registrar)

  Equal Pay; Art 157 TFEU (equal pay) has direct effect and can be relied upon by individuals in national courts.

• Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1980] IRLR 210
  Lord Justice Lawton, Lord Justice Cumming, Lord Denning

  Equal Pay; comparator; a woman can compare her pay with a *predecessor* in the same job.

• Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber Von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607 [judgment]
  ECJ (Advocate General Marco Darmon)

  Indirect discrimination; 'Objective Justification' requires a real need, appropriateness, and necessity.

• Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1987] IRLR 26 [judgment]
  Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Goff of Chieveley

  Equal Pay; material factor; market forces can be a material factor justifying a pay difference.

• Rummler v Dato-Druck GmbH [1987] IRLR 32 [judgment]
  ECJ (Fifth Chamber)

  Equal Pay; value; in job evaluation, criteria must be objective and not favour typically male attributes (e.g. strength vs dexterity).

• Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1988] ICR 464 [judgment]
  Lord MacKay of Clashfern LC, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley

  Equal Pay; work of equal value; a woman doing work of equal value is entitled to the same basic pay, not just the same total package.

• Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66 [judgment]
  Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

  Equal Pay; work of equal value; a woman can claim equal value with a man even if there is another man doing the *same* work.

• Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority Case C-127/92; [1994] ICR 112; [1993] IRLR 591 [judgment]
  O. Due, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Presidents of Chambers), R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg and J.L. Murray (Judges)

  ICR 112 ECJ - Equal Pay; statistics; statistics showing a significant gender pay gap shift the burden of proof to the employer.

• Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace [1998] ICR 205; [1998] IRLR 146; [1998] 1 WLR 259 [judgment]
  Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde

  1 WLR 259 - Equal Pay; material factor; a genuine objective reason (job sharing structure) was a valid defence.

• Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse [1999] IRLR 804 [judgment]
  G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges

  Equal Pay; burden of proof; transparent pay systems may still require objective justification if disparate impact is shown.

• Barry v Midland Bank plc [1999] ICR 319; [1999] IRLR 581 [judgment]
  Lord Slynn of Hadley

  2 AC 53 - Equal Pay; indirect discrimination; a redundancy scheme based on length of service is objectively justified despite impacting women.

• Jorgensen v Foreningen af Arbejdsledere i Danmark [2000] IRLR 726 [judgment]
  Judge-Rapporteur Puissochet, Advocate General Saggio

  Equal Pay; indirect discrimination; reorganising pay grades can be indirect discrimination if it disadvantages women.

• Brunnhofer v Bank der Oesterreichischen Postsparkasse AG [2001] IRLR 571 [judgment]
  ECJ (Sixth Chamber)

  Equal Pay; classification; job titles are not decisive; the tribunal must look at the actual work performed.

• Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College [2004] IRLR 224 [judgment]
  V. Skouris (President), P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr (Judges)

  Equal Pay; a comparator must be employed by the same source or a source responsible for setting terms.

• Cadman v Health and Safety Executive [2004] IRLR 971 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Mummery

  Equal Pay; length of service; using length of service as a pay criterion is generally justified without specific evidence.

• KB v NHS Pensions Agency [2004] IRLR 240 [judgment]
  V. Skouris, President, C.W.A. Timmermans, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Rosas, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, Judges

  Equal Pay; pensions; excluding trans partners from survivor pensions was discrimination.

• Cumbria County Council v Carlisle-Morgan [2007] IRLR 314
  Judge Reid QC, Mr T Motture, Mr M Clancy

  Equal Pay; market forces; a material factor defence must be genuinely attributable to market forces, not gender.

• Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge [2008] EWCA Civ 885; [2008] IRLR 776 [judgment]
  Mummery LJ, Smith LJ, Lindsay J

  Equal Pay; material factor defence; pay protection given to predominantly male groups whose prior higher pay was itself tainted by sex discrimination was no defence — the tribunal must look at the underlying reason for the disparity, not merely the immediate one.

• Potter v North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2009] IRLR 900 [judgment]
  Underhill J (President)

  Equal pay; limitation; amendments. Supported the view that the 'relation back' doctrine has no place in tribunal proceedings. An equal pay case where the EAT's approach lent support to Galilee's later rejection of relation back.

• Prest v Mouchel Business Services Ltd [2011] ICR 1345 [judgment]
  Underhill J (President)

  Equal pay; limitation. Supported the view that the relation back doctrine has no place in tribunal proceedings. An equal pay case where the EAT's approach lent support to Galilee's later rejection of relation back in amendment applications.

• BMC Software Ltd v Shaikh [2019] IRLR 606 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Underhill

  Equal pay; material factor defence; cogency of evidence.

• Perkins v Marston (Holdings) Ltd [2025] EAT 170 [judgment]
  Andrew Burns KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court

  Equal pay; material factor defence; s.69 EqA 2010. There is no heightened threshold of cogency or particularisation for an employer to prove a material factor explaining a pay differential, and the ET's findings of three such factors were not perverse. But on indirect sex taint the ET erred by investigating why a factor worked to the disadvantage of women: the claimant need only show that it does, whereupon the burden shifts to justification; remitted on whether the disputed factors were tainted by sex and, if so, justified.