Geneviv Boohene & Ors v The Royal Parks Ltd
[2024] EWCA Civ 583
The Royal Parks Ltd v G Boohene & Ors
5 May 2023
[2023] EAT 69
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Some cleaners sued their client (Royal Parks) for paying them less than other workers. A judge agreed, but a higher court reversed the decision, saying the judge made a mistake comparing only some workers instead of all the workers in similar situations. The lawsuit failed.
Key Facts
- •Claimants were contract workers employed by Vinci to work on a cleaning contract with the Royal Parks.
- •Their minimum pay was below the London Living Wage (LLW), unlike the Royal Parks' direct employees.
- •Claimants alleged indirect race discrimination under sections 19 and 41 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld the claims.
- •Royal Parks appealed.
Legal Principles
Indirect race discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Liability of a principal for discrimination against contract workers under section 41 Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Comparability assessment in indirect discrimination cases – considering material differences between circumstances under section 23 Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010 and case law (Shamoon, Greenland, Essop)
Definition and application of a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) in indirect discrimination claims (Ishola).
Case law (Ishola)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The ET erred in defining the PCP and the comparison pool, fundamentally undermining its approach. The pool should have included all outsourced workers, not just those from Vinci.
Claims of indirect race discrimination dismissed.
The claimants failed to make good their case that a PCP giving rise to the requisite group disadvantage had been applied.