Supreme Court ruling may increase claims for part-time workers

Key facts

• The Supreme Court ruled that part-time workers claiming discrimination do not need to prove their part-time status was the sole reason for less favorable treatment.
• The ruling potentially opens the floodgates to a large number of claims against employers.
• The case involved a part-time private hire driver arguing discriminatory fees compared to full-time drivers.
• The court established a broader causation test for part-time workers' claims.
• The ruling acknowledges that not every disadvantage faced by part-time workers is unlawful.

The Supreme Court has potentially expanded the scope for discrimination claims by part-time workers, ruling that their part-time status does not need to be the sole reason for less favorable treatment. The decision, which may "open the floodgates" to numerous claims, came in a case brought by Warren Augustine, a part-time driver for Data Cars.

Augustine argued that being charged the same fixed weekly fee for access to the booking system as full-time drivers was discriminatory because it resulted in a higher hourly rate for him. While previous tribunals dismissed parts of his claim, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal, agreeing that part-time workers' regulations apply even when their part-time status is a cause of less favorable treatment.

Lawyers interpret the ruling, led by Lady Simler, as establishing a broader causation test, thereby lowering the threshold for claimants. Katie Maguire, a partner at Devonshires, stated that claimants now only need to show their part-time status was one of the operative reasons for the treatment they received. Clare Brennan, a partner at Hunters Law, noted that the court also recognized that not every disadvantage experienced by a part-time worker will necessarily amount to unlawful treatment.

Maguire further commented that this could lead to a significant increase in claims, particularly in sectors where part-time work is common and operational constraints often influence working patterns. This development occurs as employment tribunals are already facing a surge in caseloads following major employment law reforms.