The ‘childcare disparity’ (ie the fact women bear a greater childcare responsibility than men) is so well known in the context of indirect sex discrimination claims, and has so often been the subject of judicial notice in previous cases, that it is incumbent on an employment tribunal to take notice of it in the circumstances of an indirect sex discrimination relating to a requirement to work flexibly including at weekends, according to the EAT.
Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, Working Families (Intervenor) ( UKEAT/0220/19/LA)
What are the practical implications of this case?
This judgment provides a helpful reminder of the approach to be taken by employment tribunals when considering indirect sex discrimination claims, in particular in respect of:
The EAT explains that the ‘childcare disparity’ has been recognised in many previous authorities and that those authorities still hold good because — whilst things might have progressed somewhat in that men do now bear a greater proportion of child caring responsibilities than they did decades ago — the position is still far from equal.
The fact that tribunals should take judicial notice of the ‘childcare disparity’ makes it easier for women to establish group disadvantage. It means that they will not have to provide their own supporting evidence of that matter when pursuing claims of indirect sex discrimination in circumstances where factors relating to childcare put them at a disadvantage, eg if the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) applied by the employer requires night working or changing shift patterns.
Case details
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>