Indirect Discrimination - Which Comparators

Weekly Law Reports Case Summaries

 Indirect Discrimination
Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust v Abbott: [2006] EWCA
Civ 523
CA
4 April 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
While it was for the claimants to identify their comparator group,
the tribunal had to ensure that the chosen group was not an
artificial or arbitrary one. As a matter of logic, it was not
appropriate to confine the comparator pool to one consisting
solely of the porters, rather than of porters and caterers, who
also received a bonus, since in principle the comparison should be
made between the disadvantaged group and the advantaged group. As
a matter of statistics comparison with a larger group was likely
to produce a more reliable result, so long as the group shared the
relevant characteristics and could be seen to be doing work of
equal value, though large numbers were less important where there
was an identified difference in pay or benefits, such as the
existence or absence of a bonus. Although the employment tribunal
had not used the appropriate comparator group, no tribunal could
have regarded the relevant comparator group, which was 65% male,
as other than predominantly male, and, accordingly, as the
domestics were almost exclusively female and did not get a bonus,
a prima facie case of indirect sex discrimination was established.