Miss Natasha Allen v Primark Stores Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeMrs Justice Eady
Neutral Citation[2022] EAT 57
Subject MatterSex Discrimination - Indirect,Not landmark
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Published date13 April 2022
Judgment approved by the court for handing down ALLEN v PRIMARK STORES LTD
© EAT 2022 Page 1 [2022] EAT 57
Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EAT 57
Case No: EA-2020-001085-VP
IN THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 08 April 2022
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MISS NATASHA ALLEN Appellant
- and
PRIMARK STORES LIMITED Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Bernard Culshaw, solicitor, for the Appellant
Ms Rosie Kight, of counsel (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard, LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 23 March 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down ALLEN v PRIMARK STORES LTD
© EAT 2022 Page 2 [2022] EAT 57
SUMMARY
Sex discrimination indirect discrimination
The claimant complained of a provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) of being required to guarantee
her availability to work the Thursday late shift, something she was unable to do because of her
childcare responsibilities. In assessing the discriminatory impact of the PCP, the Employment
Tribunal included within the pool for comparison two male employees, Z and I. Doing so, it
concluded that the claimant could not show that the PCP put women at a disadvantage compared to
men and there was, therefore, no discrimination such that the respondent was required to demonstrate
that the PCP was justified. The claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal
The ET had wrongly failed to address the specific PCP of which the claimant complained and had
included within the pool for comparison two individuals to whom the respondent had not applied the
same degree of compulsion, namely the requirement that they guarantee their availability for the late
shifts in question. The ET’s decision would be set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mr A Girgis v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations: 1304402/2020
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • August 9, 2023
    ...considered the decisions in Essop v Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27 and Allen v Primark Stores Limited [2022] EAT 57, in addition to Ryan v South-West Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2021] ICR 555 and drew from them the following 136.1. It is for the Tribunal......
  • Mr K Abayomi v Openreach Ltd: 2203775/2022
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • July 24, 2023
    ...for comparison on the question of 'particular advantage' in order for there to be an appropriate comparison: Allen v Primark Stores Ltd [2022] EAT 57, [2022] IRLR In Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] IRLR 601, [2012] ICR 704, SC, Lady Hale pointed out that the current ......
  • Mr P Louis v Network Homes Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...liberal rather than a technical or narrow approach to the definition of a PCP. The claimant also refers to Allen v Primark Stores Limited [2022] EAT 57 which deals with the need to address the specific PCP in order to correct construct a pool for comparison. The claimant had indicated that ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT