Part-time workers discrimination

The Supreme Court has, Augustine v Data Cars Limited, resolved a long-standing debate about claims for less favourable treatment by part-time workers. The question was whether, for a claim to succeed, the individual’s part-time status must be the sole cause of their less favourable treatment, or whether it need only be an effective cause among other factors.

The Claimant was a private hire driver working part-time hours. Like all drivers, he was required to pay a flat “circuit fee” of £148 per week to access the company’s booking system. He argued that a pro-rata circuit fee should have applied based on his part-time hours.

His claim was initially rejected by the Employment Tribunal, who found that whilst he was treated less favourably than full-time workers because he had to pay a higher circuit fee relative to his working hours and earning opportunity, the claim did not succeed because the reason for the flat circuit fee was because it was standard practice in the industry, not because he worked fewer hours. After making its way through the appeal courts, the Supreme Court has confirmed the position.

The legislation provides protection to part-time workers where:

• The treatment is on the ground that the worker is a part-time worker; and

• The treatment is not justified on objective grounds

The Supreme Court found that “on the ground that” does not mean “solely on the ground that”. Provided that part-time status is an effective cause of the less favourable treatment, it does not have to be the sole cause. Employers who previously defended claims purely on the basis that there were other reasons for treatment will now have to defend claims differently by:

• Arguing that the part-time status was not an effective cause

• Arguing that any treatment was objectively justified; or

• Arguing that any compensation should be reduced on the basis of other non-discriminatory factors also playing a part