How did a change in pay policy lead to an indirect
discrimination claim and was the discriminatory effect
justifiable?
In a recent case, the Court of Appeal held that saving on costs
alone would not be a legitimate aim to
justify indirect discrimination. However, if an employer needs to
save on costs but also reduce its
expenditure such as, costs in relation to staff and to balance its
books, this would constitute a legitimate aim and would not have a
discriminatory effect.
In the case of Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice,
the Ministry of Justice adopted a progression policy in relation to
the pay structure which affected the Claimant, a probation officer.
This resulted in the Claimant earning less than his older, longer
serving colleagues. The Claimant argued that this was a form of
indirect age discrimination and that saving on costs would not be a
legitimate aim to justify the indirect age discrimination.
