Claimant v L.D. Collins & Co Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the equal pay claim as it was presented outside the time limit in s.129 EQA. The claimant argued this was a concealment case under s.130(4) EQA, relying on salary confidentiality clauses in annual pay letters and the fact that she only discovered the comparator's exact salary in April 2024. The tribunal found that the comparator's exact salary was not a 'qualifying fact' without which the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to bring the claim. The claimant was aware she and the comparator had comparable roles, that he might be paid more, and that the employer did not have transparent pay practices. The tribunal concluded the respondent did not deliberately conceal any qualifying fact; it simply did not disclose salaries routinely and made no conscious decision to hide them from the claimant. The claimant could with reasonable diligence have raised a grievance or included an equal pay claim in the original claim form. The claim was therefore out of time and dismissed.
Facts
The claimant worked for a small pharmaceutical company from June 2017 until around December 2023 or early 2024. In January 2022 she was promoted to Head of Business Operations on a salary of £57,865 rising to £65,000 then £70,200. At the same time a male colleague, Harrise Khan (the nephew of senior vice president Cass Khan), became Head of Commercial as a direct employee. The claimant was told in annual pay letters that salary information should remain confidential and not be discussed within the business. In April 2024, after termination, a former colleague told the claimant that Harrise Khan's salary had been significantly higher than hers. The claimant sought to amend her existing claim to add an equal pay complaint, arguing the respondent had deliberately concealed the pay discrepancy and that this was a concealment case under the Equality Act.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the equal pay claim as out of time. The judge found that the respondent did not deliberately conceal the comparator's salary from the claimant. The employer did not routinely disclose salaries, and the claimant never asked about the comparator's pay during employment. The confidentiality clause in pay letters was not a deliberate act of concealment for equal pay purposes. The claimant could with reasonable diligence have raised a grievance or included the equal pay claim in her original claim form. The claim was therefore presented outside the time limit and was dismissed.
Practical note
A pay confidentiality clause and a failure to proactively disclose comparator salaries does not necessarily amount to 'deliberate concealment' for equal pay time limit purposes if the employee never asked for the information and could with reasonable diligence have raised the issue during or shortly after employment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303452/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Business Operations
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No