Female executive wins victimisation claim after being denied pay rise because of her husband

A senior female executive has won a victimisation claim after she was denied a pay rise because her boss thought her director husband's salary was 'more than enough'.

Jiang Ping, 69, previously won £4,000 after tribunal judges found she had been discriminated against on the basis of her sex by James Durrans & Sons Ltd, a £35million of carbon products used to make items including brake pads and paint.

However, they rejected a claim she had been victimised after director Chris Durrans threatened to make allegations of discrimination against her if she sued him. 

Ms Ping appealed the ruling and has now won a further £3,000 after a second tribunal ruled in her favour. 

The first tribunal heard that Ms Ping's boss at the company thought 'a married woman cannot challenge her salary if her husband is a high earner'.

Jiang Ping, 69, previously won £4,000 after tribunal judges found she had been discriminated against on the basis of her sex by James Durrans & Sons Ltd (pictured is the company's HQ)  

Ms Ping's husband, David Armitage, was a director at the Sheffield-based company earning up to £270,000, while she was a senior manager who went part-time and was earning £36,000 when she complained.

Mr Durrans, 62, also made the 'inherently discriminatory' comment about Ms Ping's household income - saying he was 'comfortable' with it.

The tribunal in London heard Ms Ping, who is Chinese, was recruited to James Durrans & Sons in 1998 and worked as a senior manager, overseeing important business in China.

Before going part-time, Ms Ping received a salary of £65,448 and a bonus of £30,000.

Her husband Mr Armitage, 58, was operations director at the company and managing director of its Chinese subsidiary, earning lucrative salaries and bonuses.

Ms Ping went part-time in 2016 and later became unhappy that her workload was not cut significantly to match her reduced hours.

In May 2021 she raised the issue.

A tribunal report said: '[She] asked Mr Armitage to raise the level of her salary with Mr C Durrans.

'Mr Armitage was uncomfortable about doing so, but did as she asked.

'Mr Durrans' response was that he was comfortable with the level of their combined household income.

'Mr Armitage said to him that he needed to talk to [Ms Ping] about the level of her salary.

'Ms Ping sent Mr C Durrans an email about her pay. She began by saying... Mr Armitage had raised with him the inadequacy of her remuneration for the work that she did for [the company].

'She said that her remuneration should reflect her value and significant contribution, particularly in so far as it related to the success of [the Chinese subsidiary].

'She said that that was irrespective of the fact that her husband also worked for the company.

'The work that she did and her remuneration had never correlated but since 2016 the gap had become 'so unreasonably acute' that she had felt compelled to raise it with him.

'She said that Mr Durrans' comment about household income had been discriminatory.'

Mr Durrans had said their 'combined household is more than enough', it was heard.

Mr Durrans' 55-year-old brother Nicholas Durrans - also a director at the company - then agreed with his brother and rejected her grievance, the panel heard.

Nicholas Durrans said 'he did not understand why she said that the comment about the combined household income was sexist'.

Ms Ping was left 'upset' and 'angry', the tribunal heard.

Ruling at the original tribunal, Employment Judge Harjit Grewal said: 'We concluded she was subjected to a detriment because her complaint about her level of pay was not considered on its merits.

'It is clear from the reason given for not dealing with it that Mr Durrans' view was that a married woman cannot challenge her level of earnings if her husband is a high earner.

'That is a view that is inherently discriminatory against women. Mr Durrans has always denied responding in that way.

'In the absence of any explanation from Mr Durrans for not considering her complaint about her level of pay at that stage and the inherently discriminatory nature of the comment he made, we concluded that in not considering her complaint he treated her less favourably on the grounds of sex.

'Ms Ping's evidence was that she had been very upset and angry Mr Durrans had used that as an excuse to avoid paying her that to which she was entitled.'

It was heard Ms Ping's complaints about her pay were later considered.

She has now won a total of £7,000 compensation after her victimisation claim was successful at a new hearing. The claim was previously dismissed but Ms Ping appealed it.

Other claims of race, sex and marital status discrimination, and harassment were all dismissed.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pa3IpbCmmZmhe6S7ja6iaKaVrMBwrdGtoJyklWJ%2Bc36Ra2lsb197sq6ty55knrCVmMK1tdWeZLChnqh6t7XCraCmoaOWwaq7zWaapZmZonqlsc2inJ1loJbGbr7IrJxmoKWor6K6w2efraWc