In a case that highlighted gender discrimination in the workplace, Jiang Ping, a senior female executive, has emerged victorious in a victimisation claim against her employer, James Durrans & Sons Ltd. She was denied a pay rise on the grounds that her director husband's salary was deemed "more than enough." The ruling exposes discriminatory attitudes and serves as a reminder that pay should be based on an individual's qualifications and contributions, irrespective of their marital status.
Ms. Ping, aged 69, initially won £4,000 after the tribunal judges ruled in her favour, stating that she had been discriminated against based on her sex by the metal products company James Durrans & Sons Ltd.
However, they rejected her claim of victimisation after director Chris Durrans threatened to make allegations of discrimination against her if she sued him. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Ms. Ping appealed the ruling and has now been awarded a further £3,000 following a second tribunal ruling.
During the original tribunal hearing, it was revealed that Ms. Ping’s husband, David Armitage, earned up to £270,000 as a director at the company, whilst Ms. Ping's own part-time senior managerial role was rewarded with a salary of £36,000.
In response to her request for a salary increase Ms. Ping's boss - Chris Durrans - commented he believed that "a married woman cannot challenge her salary if her husband is a high earner" and maintained that he was “comfortable” with their combined household income.
This remark disregarded Ms. Ping's individual contributions to the company and perpetuated the notion that her husband's income should determine her own financial worth. Chris Durrans’ brother, Nicholas Durrans, also a director at the company, supported his viewpoint, rejecting Ms. Ping's grievance.
Following the initial ruling, Employment Judge Harjit Grewal stated that Ms. Ping had been subjected to a detriment because her pay complaint was not considered on its merits. The judge highlighted that Mr. Durrans' belief that a married woman cannot challenge her earnings if her husband is a high earner is inherently discriminatory against women. With no satisfactory explanation from Mr. Durrans for dismissing her complaint, the tribunal concluded that he treated her less favourably based on her sex. However, claims of race, sex, and marital status discrimination, as well as harassment, were dismissed.
Ms. Ping's victimisation claim was initially dismissed but she appealed the ruling. In the reconsideration hearing, it was determined that the victimisation claim was well-founded, leading to her being awarded an additional £3,000 in compensation.
The ruling underscores the importance of fair and equal treatment of employees, regardless of their marital status or their spouse's income. Companies must acknowledge that each individual's salary should reflect their qualifications, contributions and responsibilities, rather than being influenced by external factors.
