Sex Discrimination on the grounds of marital status


Section 3 of the SDA puts forward the right not to be treated less favourably than a person who is not married, or in a civil partnership.

Author: Dennis Chapman
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 10 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In the recent Employment Appeal case of Dunn V The Institute of Cemetery and crematorium Management, it was held that Section 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) (as now amended and integrated into Section 8 of the Equality Act 2010) applied to less favourable treatment received because she is married to a particular man?

Section 3 of the SDA puts forward the right not to be treated less favourably than a person who is not married, or in a civil partnership. Mrs Dunn was married to Mr Dunn who also worked for the company.

Mrs Dunn was employed and tasked with setting up a new office in the north of the country. Whilst undertaking this task, she raised a grievance on the basis that the contractual sick pay was being amended. Her grievance subsequently failed, as did her appeal. Parallel to this taking place, her husband Mr Dunn was in dispute with the Chief Executive of the company, and it was felt that this had knock on effect on Mrs Dunn’s grievance.

As a result Mrs Dunn was signed of sick, claiming to have been victimised and discriminated against. During this period, Mrs Dunns post was cut short and thus her post ended.

Mrs Dunn claimed that due to the continued dispute with her husband that she had been treated less favourable, as a measure of revenge. The employment Tribunal agreed that on the evidence, she has suffered less favourable treatment and Section 8 could be applied.

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.