- 17 November 2017
In Dr Parker v MDU Services Ltd, the claimant alleged that her employer’s pension scheme indirectly discriminated against workers who had a combination of full and part-time service.
The claimant worked as a full-time employee with MDU until March 1991. Following the birth of her daughter, the claimant commenced working on a part-time basis and continued to do so until her retirement in January 2015. The scheme calculated that she had worked 21 full-time equivalent years out of the possible 28 full-time years she had been in service and a reduction was therefore applied to her pension.
Amongst other matters, she claimed that MDU had breached the sex equality rule under section 67 of the Equality Act 2010. In bringing this claim, the Tribunal identified the correct comparator as being someone who was the same age as the claimant, working full-time and who had commenced employment at the same time as the claimant. It found that the comparator would have accrued pension at the same rate as the claimant and that she was not, in its view, being paid less by way of pension entitlement than a full-time worker. The Claimant appealed, arguing that the choice of comparator was wrong. In doing so, she sought to rely on a man of the same age retiring on the same date as her with 21 years’ full-time service.
In bringing this claim, the Tribunal identified the correct comparator as being someone who was the same age as the claimant, working full-time and who had commenced employment at the same time as the claimant.
The EAT did not find that the Tribunal had made an error in its choice of comparator and rejected the claimant’s choice on the basis that it would fail to give effect to an important element of the scheme (i.e. that the accrual rate depended on the age at which the member joined).
As part of its Judgment, the EAT followed an earlier Supreme Court decision and found that an employer is able to rely on a later justification of a potentially discriminatory practice – even if it was not in its mind when it adopted the practice in the first place.
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.
About this article
SubjectPension scheme did not discriminate workers
Published17 November 2017
Read, listen and watch our latest insights
- 22 February 2024
Time to take the heat off menopausal women
On 22 February 2024, the EHRC released guidance and resources for employers designed to help employers understand their legal obligations in relation to supporting workers experiencing menopausal symptoms.
- 22 February 2024
Talking Employment Law: What to do if you’re at risk of redundancy
In this podcast, Harry Berryman and Rebecca Dowle, members of the employment team, will talk through the steps that need to be taken for a redundancy to be fair and the range of criteria that can be used when determining which employees will be made redundant.
- 21 February 2024
FAQs Partner Visa UK
Discover the UK Spouse Visa: eligibility, finances, relationship criteria, and the latest updates in 2024 for a successful application.
- 19 February 2024
- Privacy and Data Protection
The role of Data Protection Officers in ensuring compliance
How many of us receive marketing calls for products and services we did not sign up for?
- 12 February 2024
The World of Work in 2024- What Can HR Expect?
In many senses, 2024 is unlikely to be a year with radical ruptures from those that have gone before it. The significance of 2024 though, is that it is likely to build upon those megatrends impacting the world of work, which have been emerging for some time now and are only likely to strengthen as we move on in time.