FL
A couple of questions:
Did the tribunal get the law right in your opinion? Clearly you have a view on the decision itself, but was it correct in law - however asinine the law may appear to be?
So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied.
I'm assuming that the very last part of that constitutes the
ratio decidendi for this judgment (the 'reason for decision' for the non-legal people reading this). I'm not quite sure I follow the reasoning. If it's a question of the
proportion of men to women who apply for part time contracts, surely the mere fact that more women apply for them alone is not enough?
In other words - even if the ratio is 10 women for every one man who applies for a part-time contract, there can not be discrimination against women
provided that the percentage total of those contracts awarded to men and women respectively is the same? Although as you say above, there was evidence that infact BA were
more likely to award such a contract to a woman.
