The right of a part-time worker not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker. Home Office v Holmes; Ryan v South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
Indirect sex discrimination; part-time workers; judicial notice. The EAT established that it is a matter of judicial notice that women are disproportionately represented among part-time workers. A requirement to work full-time therefore constitutes indirect discrimination against women. A foundational authority for the proposition that statistical proof is not required where disadvantage is inherent in the PCP.
Discrimination; indirect; a shift system disadvantaging single mothers was indirect sex discrimination.
Discrimination; justification; the tribunal must perform a critical evaluation of the employer's reasons, not just accept them.
Age discrimination; indirect; particular disadvantage and the structure of the justification exercise. A requirement to hold a law degree for the top grade put Mr Homer, who was four years from retirement, at a particular disadvantage because of his age: the disadvantage need not flow from the age group's inability to comply, only from the fact that age made compliance futile. On justification the Supreme Court did not decide the point but remitted it, the tribunal having failed to approach proportionality 'in a suitably structured way' — it must weigh the discriminatory effect against the employer's reasonable needs and ask whether a less discriminatory alternative (such as a grandfather clause) would have served the aim.
Indirect discrimination; group disadvantage; judicial notice. The EAT (Choudhury P) confirmed that group disadvantage need not be proved by statistical evidence alone, it may be established by statistical evidence, by inference, by the disadvantage being inherent in the PCP itself, or by judicial notice. It is well established by judicial notice that women are disproportionately represented among part-time workers, so a PCP penalising part-time working puts women at a particular disadvantage without further proof.
Indirect discrimination; individual disadvantage; correspondence with group disadvantage. The EAT held that individual disadvantage suffered by the claimant must correspond to the group disadvantage, a claimant cannot succeed if the disadvantage they personally suffer is qualitatively different from the disadvantage suffered by the group sharing the relevant protected characteristic.