The Court of Appeal has recently handed down its decision in Alabaster v DWP.
Last year the ECJ held that Article 141 required that any pay rise which was
awarded to a pregnant employee between the beginning of the reference period
for calculating SMP and the end of her maternity leave should be included in
her maternity pay regardless of whether or not the rise is backdated to the
period covered by the reference pay.
The Court of Appeal has held that s1 of the Equal Pay Act 1970, in so far
as it requires a pregnant employee to cite a male comparator, should be disapplied.
Therefore, no comparator is needed if the pregnant employee can show that the
reason for not paying the employee the rise is because of her pregnancy.
In Rodway v New Southern Railways Ltd, the Court of Appeal has dismissed an
employee's appeal against a decision of the EAT in relation to paragraph 7
of Schedule 2 to the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. The
EAT had ruled that Mr Rodway was not entitled to insist on taking less than
one week's paternity leave. It was also held that he had not been subjected
to a detriment as a result of a disciplinary warning for taking the leave.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT and held that the proper construction
of the default scheme in Schedule 2 was that parental leave was only to be
taken in blocks of one week.
Sexual orientation discrimination claim by former banker
It has been reported that HSBC’s former global head of equity trading
has filed a claim against the global bank for unfair dismissal and discrimination
on the grounds of sexual orientation. Peter Lewis was appointed to the position
in September 2004, a job that would normally be rewarded with a remuneration
package in excess of £1million per annum. A spokesperson on behalf of
the bank stated that he had been dismissed for “gross personal misconduct
in early February” however Mr Lewis states that he was dismissed for