- Compelled need to reduce expenditure may justify indirect discrimination on pay (Heskett v SoS for Justice)
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What is the relevant background?
- Background law
- Background facts
- The judgment of the employment tribunal
- The judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
- What did the Court of Appeal decide?
- Ground 1: Distinction between ‘cost’ and ‘means’: the law
- Ground 1: Distinction between ‘cost’ and ‘means’: the particular issue in this appeal
- Ground 2: Relevance of ‘active consideration’
- Ground 3: Evidential basis for ‘stopgap’ finding
- Case details
Employment analysis: In a claim for indirect discrimination, an employer seeking to show justification (a) may not rely solely on the saving or avoidance of cost as a legitimate aim, but (b) may rely on the need to reduce its expenditure (and specifically its staff costs) in order to balance its books, ie where it is compelled to effect such reductions, and (c) the fact that the cost reduction measures are temporary and subject to review, or time-limited, may also go to legitimise the employer’s aim, according to the Court of Appeal.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial