||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 115 (Oct)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge Peter Clark, Mr D Bleiman and Mr A Manners
||Robin Allen QC and Nicola Bragariza (instructed by the Equal Opportunities Commission) for the employee.
||Nicholas Paines QC and Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the employer.
||5 September 2003
Discrimination - Sex discrimination - Employment - Equal pay - Genuine material factor defence - Requirement to objectively justify variations in pay - s 1(3).
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that European jurisprudence did not require a departure from domestic case law on the genuine material factor defence in s1(3) of the . Although variations in pay 'tainted by sex' had to be objectively justified, there was no requirement that in a case where the factor relied on by the employer is not tainted by direct sex discrimination and where no suggestion of prima facie indirect sex discrimination was raised, that it was nevertheless necessary for the employer to objectively justify the pay difference.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary