This Practice Note examines eligibility to bring an equal pay claim, known as equality of terms under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), and the concepts of equal work, like work, work rated as equivalent and work of equal value (equal value claims). This Practice Note contains references to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether judgments of the CJEU are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. Equal pay Code of Practice and guidance The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued a Statutory Code of Practice (the Code). The Code does not itself impose legal obligations. However it helps explain the legal obligations under EqA 2010. Tribunals and courts considering an equal pay claim are obliged to take into account any part of the Code that appears relevant to the proceedings. A supplement to the Code, last updated in May 2014, does not form part of the Code but is intended to assist those using the Code by identifying

This Practice Note examines the evidence needed for like work, work rated as equivalent and equal value equal pay claims. Three main contentions In general, equal pay claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) rely on one or more of three main contentions (see Practice Notes: Equal pay: how claims work and Equal pay: equal work and comparators): • the claimant was employed on like work with another in the same employment, or • the claimant was employed on work rated as equivalent with that of another in the same employment, or • the claimant was employed on work of equal value to that of another in the same employment For details of employment tribunal procedure in equal pay claims generally, see Practice Note: Equal pay claims: tribunal procedure. Like work claims In a claim based on 'like work' (as defined, see Practice Note: Equal pay: equal work and comparators—Like work), the employment tribunal will decide whether this requirement is satisfied, usually by reference to evidence from lay witnesses showing whether the work

This Practice Note examines the mechanism that is used in equal pay claims, known as equality of terms claims under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Prerequisites for an equal pay claim EqA 2010 contains provisions designed to achieve equality between men and women in pay and other terms of employment where the work of an employee and their comparator—a person of the opposite sex—is equal. It does so by providing for a sex equality clause to be read into the employee’s contract of employment. This is designed to ensure parity of terms between the employee and their comparator. A similar provision—referred to as a sex equality rule—is implied into the terms of pension schemes. EqA 2010 imposes an equality clause into a person's (A's) terms of work, or an equality rule into an occupational pension scheme, where A: • is employed on work that is equal to the work that a comparator of the opposite sex (B) does, or • holds a personal or public office and does work that is equal to the work that a comparator

This Practice Note considers how equal pay (equality of terms) applies to women who are pregnant or on ordinary or additional maternity leave (OML/AML). It covers the implied maternity equality clause (including its effect and the protected period), addresses the principle that no comparator is required in pregnancy and maternity related equal pay claims, and explains how pay increases, bonuses and pension contributions are treated during maternity leave and on return to work. A woman absent on maternity leave is in a unique position, which requires her to be afforded special protection, but which is not comparable with that of a man actually at work. A woman on maternity leave is not therefore entitled to full pay, despite the principle of equal pay under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, this does not mean that a woman on maternity leave is excluded from all equal pay rights whilst on maternity leave (see: Effect of maternity equality clause below). As is the case with non-maternity protection (see Practice Note: Equal pay: definition

Employment analysis: In the context of mass equal pay litigation, where the ET1 identifies comparators by no more than, for example, location or class, a request for disclosure designed to narrow and particularise those comparators should be allowed if it is necessary for the fair disposal of proceedings, and will not constitute an impermissible 'fishing expedition', according to the EAT.

Employment analysis: If an employer is relying on a contractual requirement as a material factor so as to provide a defence to an equal pay claim, the fact that a comparator is no longer complying with the requirement might form part of an evidential picture from which the tribunal could infer that the requirement had in reality been abandoned or suspended. However, that does not mean that a tribunal must infer, from the mere fact that an individual was failing to take some proactive steps that they were required to take, that this was reflective of there no longer being a genuine requirement on the part of their employer, in the absence of, for example, some further evidence and factual finding about the employer’s stance or conduct in that regard, according to the EAT.

Employment analysis: An employer does not need to prove the identity of the decision-maker in order to establish a material factor defence to an equal pay claim. Further, comparative evidence of the respective skills and abilities of the claimant and the comparator from a period in time after the comparator’s appointment is not necessarily irrelevant to the employer’s defence, according to the EAT.

That matrimonial assets should be shared in equal proportions unless there is good reason to depart from equality.

Principle requiring gender equality with respect to contributions and benefits.

Equal treatment for men and women is a principle of EU law which prohibits discrimination on grounds of gender.

Arbitration analysis: This case has a significant bearing on the manner in which the operation and effect of arbitral awards in India are sought to be stayed/set aside. The Supreme Court of India, upon analyzing the framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) concluded that under the Act, the government is not entitled to any exceptional treatment when it comes to the conditions basis which the impugned arbitral award may be stayed, particularly the form of security which may be furnished in lieu of granting a stay. The court observed that the Act is a self-contained code that does not differentiate between parties based on their status of being government or private entities and mandates that they be treated equally, except where otherwise indicated by law. Accordingly, the court observed that the High Court, while staying the arbitral award dated 7 March 2024 (‘Award’), ought not to have based its decision merely on the respondent’s status as a statutory authority. This judgment will dissuade government entities from mounting frivolous challenges to arbitral awards and particularly, seeking that they be stayed, knowing now that they will have to furnish security strictly in the form and manner prescribed under section 36 of the Act to have the award stayed. Written by Ila Kapoor, partner, Ramkrishna Veerendra and Devika Bansal, associates, at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

As income from a unit trust accrues between dividend distributions, it is added to the unit price.