The Supreme Court has ruled that part-time workers claiming discrimination do not need to prove their part-time status was the "sole reason" for less favourable treatment. This decision "may have opened the floodgates to a large number of potential claims against employers," according to legal experts.
The ruling came in a case brought by Warren Augustine, a part-time private hire driver for Data Cars. Mr Augustine argued that being charged the same fixed weekly "circuit fee" as full-time drivers was discriminatory, as it resulted in him paying a higher hourly rate.
While previous tribunals dismissed aspects of his claim, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal on Wednesday. The court agreed that part-time workers' regulations apply if a worker's part-time status is the cause of their less favourable treatment.
Lawyers suggest the court's reasoning, led by Lady Simler, has established a broader victory for part-time workers regarding the legal standard for future claims. Katie Maguire, a partner at Devonshires, stated that the court has adopted a broader causation test, lowering the threshold for claimants.
Part-time workers will now only need to demonstrate that their part-time status was one of the operative reasons for the treatment received, rather than the sole or predominant reason. However, Clare Brennan, a partner at Hunters Law, noted that not every disadvantage experienced by a part-time worker will necessarily amount to unlawful treatment.
This judgment comes as Employment Tribunals are already experiencing an increase in caseloads, following major changes to employment laws.