Ms Ping Jiang v James Durrans & Sons Limited — 2023

Ms Ping Jiang brought equal pay, discrimination/harassment, victimisation and unlawful deduction claims against James Durrans & Sons Ltd. The tribunal accepted that she had a long career with the group, including work for JDT as Deputy Managing Director, but held that her work was not 'like work' for equal pay purposes when compared with David Armitage or Andreas Jentsch because their experience, duties and responsibilities were materially different. The equal pay claim therefore failed.

In the discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal found that Mr C Durrans' 30 March 2021 comment that the Tianjin staff were 'spoiled' by the claimant and that she was 'mothering' them was related to sex, but it did not satisfy the s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment test. The tribunal also found that, in May 2021, Mr Durrans' response to the claimant's pay complaint - that he was comfortable with the level of the couple's combined household income - meant that her complaint was not considered on its merits and amounted to direct sex discrimination. The remaining race, sex and marital-status discrimination allegations, and the other harassment allegations, were dismissed, including complaints about long-haul flights, board access and appointments, payslip addressing, and comments made at the 6 September 2021 grievance appeal.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the claimant's informal grievance of 18 June 2021 was not a protected act, but that her formal grievance of 8 July 2021, the discrimination allegations raised at the 6 September 2021 appeal, and the tribunal claim were protected acts. It nevertheless found that the challenged conduct after those events was not because of protected acts: the requests for a breakdown and evidence about overtime, the handling of the subject access requests, the instruction not to copy her into one email thread, and the refusal to provide the appeal recording were not retaliatory detriments.

On wages, the tribunal found that the April 2016 variation agreed from 1 June 2016 meant the claimant was to work five days a month on 25% salary, with extra days paid at £180 when claimed. It held that she was paid the amounts properly payable each month and that her later October 2021 claim for £152,370 for alleged unclaimed hours over five years fell outside the agreement. The only claim upheld was the May 2021 direct sex discrimination complaint, for which the tribunal made a £4,000 injury to feelings award in the lower Vento band.