Reward Strategy. Incoporating Payroll World.

Is shared parental leave indirect sex discrimination?

A male police constable, who argued that only being able to take shared parental leave (SPL) at the statutory rate of pay was indirectly discriminatory, has won part of his appeal in regards to a case taken to an employment tribunal (ET).

TwitterLinkedInFacebook

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the ET reasons for rejecting women on maternity leave as a comparator for a direct discrimination claim for the purposes of the indirect discrimination claim was wrong, it also found that it had failed to base its decision on the impact of the leave policy.

 

In the case, Hextall v Chief Constable Leicester Police, Hextall is a serving police constable in the Roads Armed Policing Team at Leicester Police.

 

In April 2015 his second child was born and he took SPL from June 1 to September 6 2015 and was paid at the statutory rate of £139.58 per week for that period.

 

Had Hextall been a female constable on maternity leave, he would have been entitled to his full salary for the period over which he took the SPL.

 

Hextall claimed indirect sex discrimination in that the only option for men taking leave after the birth of their child is SPL at the statutory rate of pay, whereas women have the option of taking maternity leave on full pay.

 

In her summary, the Honourable Mrs Justice Slade, said: “The ET erred in adopting their reasons for rejecting women on maternity leave as a comparator for a direct discrimination claim for the purposes of the indirect discrimination claim.

 

“The identifying of a pool for testing disparate impact of a provision, criterion or practice on men and women in materially indistinguishable circumstances is a different exercise from that in a direct discrimination claim.

 

“Further the ET erred in failing to base their decision on the disparate impact relied upon: Fathers have no choice but to take SPL at the statutory rate of pay whereas mothers have the option of maternity leave at full pay. Appeal allowed. Claim of indirect sex discrimination remitted for rehearing to a differently constituted ET.”

TwitterLinkedInFacebook
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Login or Register to access enhanced features of the website.

You might also like

Offering payroll loans “is not viewed as encouraging debt”

Offering payroll loans “is not viewed as encouraging debt”


Industry body warns employers don’t communicate their benefits enough

Industry body warns employers don’t communicate their benefits enough


HR professionals spend up to £500,000 on IR35 preparations

HR professionals spend up to £500,000 on IR35 preparations


Julie Northover: "It was a case of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’"

Julie Northover: "It was a case of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’"

LATEST PAYROLL AND REWARDS NEWS IN YOUR INBOX

Reward Strategy homepage
Reward Strategy RSS

Did you find our website useful?

Thank you for your input

Thank you for your feedback

reward-strategy.com - an online news and information service for the UK’s payroll, reward, pensions, benefits and HR sectors. reward-strategy.com is published by Shard Financial Media Limited, registered in England & Wales as 5481132, Axe & Bottle Court, 70 Newcomen St, London, SE1 1YT. All rights reserved. Reward Strategy is committed to diversity in the workplace.
© Copyright Shard Financial Media Ltd