header-logo header-logo

14 October 2016 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Driving change?

nlj_7718_pigott

Gender equality on the railways is still some way down the tracks, says Charles Pigott

  • A few weeks ago the Employment Appeal Tribunal grappled with a discrimination claim from a female train driver after numerous requests to adjust her working hours had been refused.
  • Both the facts and legal issues were strikingly similar to Susan Edwards’ battle with London Underground nearly twenty years earlier.

In XC Trains Ltd v CD and Aslef EAT/0331/15, a female train driver employed in the North East brought proceedings for indirect sex discrimination against her employer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the employment tribunal’s finding that the employer’s required working patterns put women at a particular disadvantage. However, it overturned the tribunal’s rejection of the employer’s justification defence and remitted this issue to a new tribunal.

CD: the facts

At the relevant time, XC Trains employed 559 train drivers of whom 17 were women. At the Newcastle depot, where the claimant worked, there were 21 drivers including four women.

The standard shift pattern meant that only a small minority of shifts fell entirely during family friendly hours. The claimant,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll