British Airways Plc v Grundy [2005] UKEAT 0676_04_1908 (19 August 2005)

British Airways Plc v Grundy [2005] UKEAT 0676_04_1908 (19 August 2005)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by focusing on the disadvantaged group rather than the advantaged group when assessing disparate impact, and by failing to recognize the minimal difference in proportions between men and women. Claims relating to pay and seniority regulated by contract must be brought under the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UKEAT 0676_04_1908
Parties
Claimant: Ms Grundy; Claimants: Barber group (including Ms Clayton, Ms Langton, Ms Wirths, Ms Morgan, Ms Hargreaves, Ms Hilton); Respondent: British Airways Plc
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals by BA allowed; most claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Indirect Sex Discrimination, Seniority Schemes, Time Limits, Justification, Amendment of Claims
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Indirect Sex Discrimination Seniority Schemes Time Limits Justification Amendment of Claims

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Grundy

Claimant

Barber group (including Ms Clayton, Ms Langton, Ms Wirths, Ms Morgan, Ms Hargreaves, Ms Hilton)

Claimants

British Airways Plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether operation of pay scales and seniority schemes caused indirect discrimination against women
  2. 2 Whether claims were properly made under the Equal Pay Act or Sex Discrimination Act
  3. 3 Whether claims were presented out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by focusing on the disadvantaged group rather than the advantaged group when assessing disparate impact, and by failing to recognize the minimal difference in proportions between men and women. Claims relating to pay and seniority regulated by contract must be brought under the Equal Pay Act, not the Sex Discrimination Act. Most claims were presented out of time and should have been dismissed. The defence of justification was correctly rejected, but the claims fail on the merits due to lack of disparate impact.

Court Disposition

Appeals by BA allowed; most claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Claims under the Equal Pay Act dismissed as out of time or on the merits.
  • Employment Tribunal should not have considered claims under the Sex Discrimination Act; those claims dismissed.