Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace
An employer can rely on a material factor defence where the pay difference is due to a factor which is not tainted by sex, and need not show that the factor is objectively justified.
Facts
Nine teachers, seven women and two men, worked as principal teachers in all but name, carrying out the duties of principal teachers without being appointed to those posts or paid at the higher rate. They brought equal pay claims, comparing themselves with male principal teachers. The employer argued that the difference in pay was due to the limited number of principal teacher posts available, because of financial constraints and statutory restrictions, not to sex.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the employer had established the material factor defence. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that the employer needed to show that the difference in pay was genuinely due to a factor which was not the difference of sex. Where there is no suggestion that the factor relied on is tainted by sex discrimination, the employer does not have to justify it objectively. The fact that the claimants included men showed that the difference was not related to sex, and the financial constraints which limited the number of posts were a genuine material factor.
Related cases on equal pay
- Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College Case C-256/01, [2004] ECR I-873
- Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10
- Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group Case C-262/88, [1990] ECR I-1889
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz Case 170/84, [1986] ECR 1607
- Birmingham City Council v Abdulla [2012] UKSC 47, [2013] 1 AC 504
- Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) Case 43/75, [1976] ECR 455
- Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority Case C-127/92, [1993] ECR I-5535
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall [2000] 1 WLR 333
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
