Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2003 |
| Date | 03 April 2003 |
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Before Judge Ansell, Mrs D. Palmer and Mr G. H. Wright
Sex discrimination - two-stage test - guidelines
No employment tribunal should be seen to condone a City bonus culture involving secrecy and lack of transparency as giving employers a reason for avoiding equal pay obligations.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so stated in allowing the appeal, and remitting sex discrimination and unequal pay complaints, of Louise Barton against the decision of a London Central employment tribunal promulgated on September 30, 2002, which had found:
(i) the employer had established the material factor defence over variation in salary and long-term incentive plans between the applicant and a male comparator; (ii) the difference in treatment as to grant of share options was due to a material factor which was not the difference in sex under the Equal Pay Act 1970, or, if the options were not regulated by the contract of employment, did not amount to less favourable treatment on the ground of sex; (iii) the employer did not treat the applicant less favourably on the ground of sex in awarding bonuses.
The applicant, who was employed in the financial sector in the City, became aware of apparent discrepancies in salary and discretionary bonuses between herself and certain male employees in the same institution, including an apparent discrepancy, in the bonuses awarded in one year, of Pounds 700,000 between her own case and that of a male colleague.
Section 1 of the 1970 Act provides: "(3) An equality clause shall not operate in relation to a variation between the woman's contract and the man's contract if the employer proves that the variation is genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex…"
Section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as inserted by the Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations (SI 2001 No 2660) provides:
"(1) This section applies to any complaint presented under section 63 to an employment tribunal.
"(2) Where, on the hearing of the complaint, the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could, apart from this section, conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the respondent -(a) has committed an act of discrimination against the complainant which … the tribunal shall uphold the complaint unless the respondent proves that he did not commit or, as the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Wong v Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and Others; Emokpae v Chamberlin Solicitors and another; Webster v Brunel University
...the insertion of s. 63A into the SDA, the EAT (His Honour Judge Ansell presiding) in a sex discrimination case, Barton v Investec Securities Ltd. [2003] ICR 1205 set out in para. 25 the following guidance in the light of the statutory changes: "(1) Pursuant to section 63A of the 1975 Act, i......
- Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd
- Fecitt and Others v NHS Manchester
-
Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
...of the amended legislation. They came later: first, in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Barton v. Investec Henderson Crothwaite Securities Ltd [2003] ICR 1205 ( Barton-3 April 2003) and then in the Court of Appeal in Igen v. Wong (18 February 2005). Without help from the judicial rulings a......