Equal Pay; Art 157 TFEU (equal pay) has direct effect and can be relied upon by individuals in national courts.
Equal Pay; comparator; a woman can compare her pay with a *predecessor* in the same job.
Indirect discrimination; 'Objective Justification' requires a real need, appropriateness, and necessity.
Equal Pay; material factor; market forces can be a material factor justifying a pay difference.
Equal Pay; value; in job evaluation, criteria must be objective and not favour typically male attributes (e.g. strength vs dexterity).
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.
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.
ICR 112 ECJ - Equal Pay; statistics; statistics showing a significant gender pay gap shift the burden of proof to the employer.
1 WLR 259 - Equal Pay; material factor; a genuine objective reason (job sharing structure) was a valid defence.
Equal Pay; burden of proof; transparent pay systems may still require objective justification if disparate impact is shown.
2 AC 53 - Equal Pay; indirect discrimination; a redundancy scheme based on length of service is objectively justified despite impacting women.
Equal Pay; indirect discrimination; reorganising pay grades can be indirect discrimination if it disadvantages women.
Equal Pay; classification; job titles are not decisive; the tribunal must look at the actual work performed.
Equal Pay; a comparator must be employed by the same source or a source responsible for setting terms.
Equal Pay; length of service; using length of service as a pay criterion is generally justified without specific evidence.
Equal Pay; pensions; excluding trans partners from survivor pensions was discrimination.
Equal Pay; market forces; a material factor defence must be genuinely attributable to market forces, not gender.
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.
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.
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.
Equal pay; material factor defence; cogency of evidence.
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.