In Alabaster v. Barclays Bank plc and Secretary of State for Social Security (No. 2: [2005] E.W.C.A Civ. 508, [2005] I.R.L.R. 576.) Michelle Alabaster won a grand total of £204.53 (plus £65.86 interest) after eight years of litigation, which included two visits to the Court of Appeal and one to the European Court of Justice. This marathon resulted from the sex discrimination which Alabaster had alleged in relation to the calculation of her Statutory Maternity Pay (S.M.P.) whilst she was pregnant (...) 10 years earlier. The technicalities of the statutory schemes involved should not be allowed to disguise the important principle which finally emerges in the Court of Appeal and which underlines one of the longstanding criticisms of the equality legislation, namely the requirement that a woman must compare herself with a man in order to establish unlawful sex discrimination. (shrink)

In Britiain, it is unlawful,regardless of the motive of the discriminator,to refuse to give a woman a job because of hersex. On the other hand, the U.K. case ofCoker and Osamor v. The Lord Chancellor and theLord Chancellor's Department suggests that itis permissible, by `pre-selecting' anindividual man, to rule out any possible femalecandidates. The singular facts of this caseshould not disguise the troubling conclusionthat while sex (and race) discrimination maysometimes be blatant and deliberate, morefrequently it is subtle and routine. Furthermore, (...) discrimination is much moredifficult to challenge, let alone eradicate,when it is embedded in the system. This notestarts from the premise that, while sexequality requires more than the appointment ofwomen to influential posts, that is, at least,a start and if it is decided in advance thatappointments will be made only from a smallcircle of `acceptable' people there is a realdanger that the idea of the `establishment' asa self-perpetuating (white) male enclave willbe confirmed. (shrink)