if there is more than one reason for a part time worker being treated less favourably than his full time comparator it cannot be said that the less favourable treatment was "on the ground that the worker is a part-time worker", as provided by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, reg 5(2)(a).

editor's note:

the proposition was subsequently given some support by the House of Lords in Matthews and ors v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and ors HL 2006 UKHL 8 on 1st March 2006 and more directly by the Scottish Court of Session in McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd CS 2007 IRLR 400. However it was categorically stated to be wrong by the EAT in 2008 and in 2009. In 2008 the EAT said "In our judgment, once it is found that [a] part timer is treated less favourably than a comparator full timer and being part time is one of the reasons, that will suffice to trigger the Regulations" (para 51 in Sharma & ors v Manchester City Council EAT 2008 IRLR 336).

In 2009 the EAT specifically confirmed that the Sharma decision is to be preferred to the Gibson and McMenemy decisions (see Carl v University of Sheffield EAT 2009 ICR 1286)..

For relevant general notes see Part-time workers/2000 regulations/notes .