Hartlepool Borough Council & Anor v. Dolphin & Ors [2008] UKEAT 0007_08_1509 (15 September 2008)

Hartlepool Borough Council & Anor v. Dolphin & Ors [2008] UKEAT 0007_08_1509 (15 September 2008)

The Employment Tribunal was correct to find that most bonus schemes were a sham, not genuinely productivity-related, and discriminatory on grounds of sex, failing the material factor defence. Only the cash incentive scheme was genuinely monitored and justified. The Tribunal erred in finding disproportionate impact on women in the education drivers group, as statistical evidence did not support a prima facie case of indirect discrimination.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0007_08_1509
Parties
Respondent: Hartlepool Borough Council; Claimant: Test Claimants (various female employees)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed except for Respondent's appeal on education drivers; Tribunal's finding on education drivers overturned.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Material Factor Defence, Indirect Discrimination, Bonus Schemes, Sex Discrimination
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Material Factor Defence Indirect Discrimination Bonus Schemes Sex Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hartlepool Borough Council

Respondent

Test Claimants (various female employees)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bonus schemes constitute a genuine material factor defence under the Equal Pay Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether bonus schemes are a sham and discriminatory on grounds of sex
  3. 3 Whether there is a disproportionate impact on female employees

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was correct to find that most bonus schemes were a sham, not genuinely productivity-related, and discriminatory on grounds of sex, failing the material factor defence. Only the cash incentive scheme was genuinely monitored and justified. The Tribunal erred in finding disproportionate impact on women in the education drivers group, as statistical evidence did not support a prima facie case of indirect discrimination.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed except for Respondent's appeal on education drivers; Tribunal's finding on education drivers overturned.

Orders

  • Employment Tribunal's findings upheld except for education drivers group.
  • Education drivers group: Tribunal's finding of disproportionate impact on women set aside.