Article 141 of the EU treaty and The Equality Act 2010 require equal pay for work of equal value for men and women and prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender. Gender discrimination can be direct or indirect. Direct gender discrimination occurs where an employee is treated less favourably because of their sex or the sex of an associate. Indirect gender discrimination occurs where there is a policy, procedure or practice that applies to all employees but principally disadvantages workers of a particular sex (Bennet & Hartman, 2009). Discrimination can occur in areas of recruitment and selection, determining pay, training and development, selection for promotion, discipline and grievances or in countering bullying and harassment (Contouris, 2007) . Genevieve’s claim of gender discrimination relates to determination of pay. Genevieve’s claim arises from perceived direct discrimination in employment as she feels she does not receive equal pay for work of equal value compared to her male counterparts. In determining gender discrimination the law requires a four stage approach.
1. Select an appropriate comparator of the opposite sex, in this case one of her male counterparts
2. Prove that the male guards are employed to carry out work of equal value.
3. Compare her terms and conditions of employment with the comparator.
4. The court will assess whether the difference in pay is due to sex discrimination.
The objective legal test for Genevieve’s claim has been defined by the House of Lords in the decision in (James v Eastliegh Borough Council  IRLR 288). The test is ‘would the complainant have received the same treatment but for his/her sex’. In Genevieve’s case the answer is to the affirmative.
The employer has a defense in proving that the pay difference between Genevieve and her comparator is due to a genuine material factor other than sex (Bennet & Hartman, 2009). The low recovery of diamonds from female workers is a genuine material factor beyond the control of the employer. My opinion is that this factor is a valid defense for the employer. It is an occupational requirement that body searches on female miners be done by a woman. If otherwise the female miners would object to body cavity search by male security guards. By reason of occupational requirement...