Unfavourable treatment test

Case 8: The facts

Solicitors Sian Heard and Sian Fellows brought claims of sex discrimination on the grounds that they were allocated fewer good cases than their colleagues, so that they did not bring in the level of fees necessary to become senior equity partners.

Fellows also claimed that the firm's refusal of her request to work part-time was indirectly discriminatory. A tribunal upheld their claims.

The ruling

The EAT held that the findings of sex discrimination could not stand because the tribunal had not addressed all the relevant issues.

A tribunal must first establish that there has, on the face of it, been unfavourable treatment. It must then set out clearly the nature and extent of the unfavourable treatment, so that the employer can put forward their reasons for the treatment.

In the indirect discrimination claim, the tribunal had not properly considered whether the requirement to work full-time adversely affected proportionally more women than men. The claim was sent back to the tribunal for this to be decided.

Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard [2004] IRLR 763