header-logo header-logo

28 May 2019
Issue: 7842 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Maternity challenges fail

Employers who enhance maternity pay for women do not discriminate against men taking shared parental leave at lower rates, the Court of Appeal has held.

The court held there was ‘nothing unusual’ about the employers’ policies, in Ali v Capita; Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2019] EWCA Civ 900.

In Ali, women were entitled to maternity pay of up to 39 weeks, with 14 weeks at full pay followed by 25 weeks of lower rate statutory maternity pay. Parents taking shared parental leave received statutory shared parental pay only. Mr Ali claimed direct discrimination, arguing only the first two weeks of compulsory maternity leave are necessary while the rest of maternity leave is a choice about providing care.

In Hextall, women were entitled to 18 weeks full pay followed by 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay whilst those on shared parental leave were only paid at statutory rates. Mr Hextall argued his employer’s policy indirectly discriminated against men.

However, the court unanimously rejected both appellants’ arguments.

Jenny Arrowsmith, partner at Irwin Mitchell, who acted for Capita, said: ‘Parliament has made a statutory exception which gives special treatment to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.

‘That special treatment is, by definition, not available to anyone other than a birth mother, which means the partners of birth mothers are not discriminated against if they do not receive enhanced benefits for taking leave to care for their newborn. This decision will be welcomed by employers that pay higher rates to women on maternity leave than to parents on different types of family leave.

‘It’s also good news for women. Had the decision gone the other way, employers may have reduced their maternity pay to statutory rates because they could not afford to equalise pay rates to those taking shared parental leave.’

Issue: 7842 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll