Mrs J Hinchey v The Eye Academy (Richmond) Limited — 2021

The claimant brought complaints of direct sex discrimination and equal pay, but at the resumed hearing on 26 November 2020 her counsel stated that the direct sex discrimination complaint was no longer being pursued. The Tribunal therefore determined only the equal pay complaint, applying sections 65 to 70 of the Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal found that the claimant and her male comparator, Mr Kim Patel, were not employed on like work. It accepted that there was considerable overlap in their day-to-day tasks, and that after the TUPE transfer many of their duties were similar, but held that the comparator had been recruited for a different role with greater technical, managerial and financial responsibilities. Those responsibilities included laboratory experience, negotiation with suppliers, banking, key-holder duties, and acting in a practice-manager capacity when required, whereas the claimant was recruited as a dispensing assistant and did not have the same skills or responsibilities.

The Tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the differences were not of practical importance. It held that the distinctions between the roles remained significant throughout the claimant's employment, including the comparator's technical work, residual managerial functions, and banking responsibilities, and that the claimant's window-case design work was a separate feature of her role. It concluded that the claimant and the comparator did different jobs throughout their employment, so the equal pay claim failed.

The Tribunal added that, if it had been wrong about like work, the respondent would in any event have established a material factor defence. It accepted the respondent's explanation that the comparator's greater skills, qualifications, experience and responsibilities explained the pay difference, and it found no basis for treating the differential as tainted by sex discrimination. The complaint was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.