Employment Law Sex Discrimination - Justification - Margin of Discretion
Below is a MRR and PLR article in category Reference Education -> subcategory Legal.
Employment Law: Sex Discrimination and Justification
Case Overview
In the landmark case of Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax [2005] EWCA Civ 846, the Court of Appeal examined issues surrounding sex discrimination in employment. The appellants, brewers managing a chain of pubs, faced a claim from an employee who had taken maternity leave. Upon her return, she requested to job share her position as retail recruitment manager or take up another role on a job-share basis. This request was denied, leading her to file a case for unlawful sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Legal Framework
According to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA), discrimination occurs when an employer applies a criterion or practice to a woman that is applied equally to men but cannot be justified irrespective of the person's sex.
Tribunal Findings
The Employment Tribunal weighed the employer's justification against its discriminatory impact, ultimately rejecting the employers’ reasoning. They ruled in favor of the employee, determining she was unfairly dismissed. The employers appealed this decision.
Appeal Court's Evaluation
The employers argued the Tribunal used the wrong criteria by not allowing them a 'margin of discretion' in deciding whether the job share was feasible. They believed this discretion was necessary.
Conversely, the employee argued that the Tribunal's test didn’t require proving the decision was the only possible action; instead, it disallowed a range of arbitrary employer responses.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, stating that under section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the SDA, the employer's actions must be 'objectively justifiable and reasonably necessary.' Employers are not expected to show their action was the sole option, but their decision cannot fall within a flexible margin of discretion. The principle of proportionality requires consideration of legitimate business needs?"but any decision must be based on thorough and fair analysis of business practices.
Conclusion
This case emphasizes that while business needs are important, any action taken by an employer must be justifiable without resorting to broad discretion. Careful judgment is necessary to ensure decisions are fair and necessary within the context of the business.
For further inquiries, please contact us at:
Email: enquiries@rtcoopers.com
Note: This briefing is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always seek specialist legal guidance for specific circumstances. © RT COOPERS, 2005.
You can find the original non-AI version of this article here: Employment Law Sex Discrimination - Justification - Margin of Discretion.
You can browse and read all the articles for free. If you want to use them and get PLR and MRR rights, you need to buy the pack. Learn more about this pack of over 100 000 MRR and PLR articles.