Mrs L. Chapman v Intercontinental Hotels Group Services Company OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019

Mrs L. Chapman's claim against Intercontinental Hotels Group Services Company concerned indirect sex discrimination arising from the calculation of an enhanced redundancy payment after her redundancy dismissal on 15 June 2018. The payment was based on her weekly salary at the date of termination, and the relevant multiplier reflected 14 completed years' service. The tribunal noted that she had worked part-time for the last three years after 11 years' full-time service, and it proceeded as though her alternative equal pay characterisation had been allowed for the purposes of the strike-out hearing.

On the strike-out application, the tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest and assumed, without deciding statistics, that the scheme could place substantially more women than men at a disadvantage because of the greater incidence of part-time working among women. It also accepted that there was a reasonably arguable case on disparate impact. However, it found that the scheme's aim was clear and legitimate: to provide compensation for loss of income following redundancy, rather than payment for past service. The scheme had been in place since 2005 and had been considered in consultation with employee representatives, including concerns about employees who had moved from full-time to part-time work.

Applying the strike-out principles in Mechkjarov v Citibank NA and the objective justification analysis discussed in Barry v Midland Bank plc, together with Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax, RMC v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary, and Tree v SE Coastal Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal concluded that the case was not distinguishable from Barry. It accepted that Barry was not an easy case, but treated the House of Lords' reasoning as highly persuasive and found no basis for saying the scheme lacked objective justification. It therefore held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, struck it out under rule 37, declined to make a deposit order, and vacated the final hearing listed for 2 to 4 December 2019.