Cumbria County Council v Joss & Ors

Cumbria County Council v Joss & Ors

The Council failed to prove that the difference in pay was unrelated to sex, as the productivity bonuses were found to be automatic uplifts rather than true productivity benefits. There was prima facie sex discrimination which was not objectively justified. The Employment Tribunal's findings of fact were not perverse and the EAT applied the correct legal principles. The Council's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success on a question of law.

Parties
Appellant: Cumbria County Council; Respondents: Joss & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Genuine Material Factor Defence, Sex Discrimination, Productivity Bonus Schemes
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Genuine Material Factor Defence Sex Discrimination Productivity Bonus Schemes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cumbria County Council

Appellant

Joss & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the Council's genuine material factor (GMF) defence to equal pay claims
  2. 2 Whether the difference in pay due to productivity bonus schemes was objectively justified and unrelated to sex
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal's findings of fact were perverse or contained legal error

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to prove that the difference in pay was unrelated to sex, as the productivity bonuses were found to be automatic uplifts rather than true productivity benefits. There was prima facie sex discrimination which was not objectively justified. The Employment Tribunal's findings of fact were not perverse and the EAT applied the correct legal principles. The Council's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success on a question of law.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused