Ian Smith updates us on contingent males, some nimble judicial footwork & a dog’s breakfast
At first sight, a “contingent male” may appear to be a feminist dream but in the looking glass world of local authority equal pay claims it has a more prosaic meaning.
If a woman (F1) makes an equal pay claim citing as a comparator a man doing a different job (M2) and succeeds, can a man doing the same work as F1 (M1) claim equal pay with her? If so, can M1 in effect pre-empt the issue by bringing a “contingent” claim on the basis that if she wins he should win too?
In his judgment in Hartlepool BC v Llewllyn [2009] UKEAT/006/08 (in fact four consolidated appeals) Underhill P posed two questions: (i) do contingent males have a claim at all; and (ii) if so, what is its scope (in particular in relation to a claim for arrears).
Same work no pay
Normally M1 can claim equal pay if F1 is doing the same work but paid more, but the twist in this instance (on which, curiously,
