Outer Temple team effective in Supreme Court Equal Pay hearing – Asda Stores v Brierley

Outer Temple team effective in Supreme Court Equal Pay hearing – Asda Stores v Brierley

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Asda’s appeal and held that the Claimants (35,000 predominantly female retail employees) can use male distribution employees as comparators for the purposes of an equal pay claim in a judgment handed down this morning. Andrew brief QC, Naomi Cunningham and Paul Livingston had been instructed by Leigh to appear on behalf of the Claimants day.

The claims are brought in the foundation that retail workers are paid lower than distribution workers despite carrying out work of equal value. Asda had argued that the circulation employees are not legitimate comparators as they additionally the retail workers worked at various areas and are not used on “common terms” inside the concept associated with legislation. This argument once was refused by the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal plus the Court of Appeal.

Providing the judgment that is unanimous of Supreme Court, Lady Arden lay out that when it comes to ‘common terms’ requirement to be pleased, all of that is necessary is that the conditions and terms needs to be broadly the exact same during the comparators’ as well as the claimants’ establishments. This does not always mean the “same” terms nor require a line-by-line comparison of this retail workers’ terms while the circulation workers’ terms. Alternatively, a comparison that is broad necessary to weed down evaluations which cannot realistically be manufactured considering that the variations in terms depend on geographic or historical facets. This really is a threshold test, while the court noted that “Cases in which the limit test can’t be met are usually exemplary.”

Where there aren’t any comparators whom just work at the Claimants’ establishment (in other words. […]