Barton wins second chance in Investec discrimination case

Barton, a former top-ranked media analyst, had claimed a lack of transparency in Investec's bonus scheme. The original tribunal ruled that secrecy and lack of transparency over bonuses were a vital part of investment banking culture.

The appeals tribunal ruled that Barton's previous testimony should be reheard and judged using the burden of proof directive, under which employers must do more to remove an assumption that they were sexist in the absence of any objective criteria for measuring performance.

During the original hearing last July the tribunal was told that, between 1997 and last year, Barton and her former trainee Matthew Horsman had both generated fees for the company of approximately 11.5m (€16.7m). Bonus differentials meant that Horsman's total earnings for the period were 2.1m while Barton received 1.05m.

The appeals tribunal said: 'No tribunal should be seen to condone a City of London bonus culture involving secrecy and/or lack of transparency because of the potential large amounts involved, as a reason for avoiding equal pay obligation."

Investec, which can appeal against the new decision, said it confident it could prove a second time that the firm did not discriminate against Barton.

Investec could face a bill for up to 1m in overdue bonuses and salary if Barton is successful in her second hearing, for which a date should be set in the coming months.

In February, Barton withdrew her claims of constructive dismissal and victimisation against Investec in order to concentrate her resources on the unequal pay claim. Her appeal to the appeals tribunal was partially funded by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which hopes to remove secrecy and barriers to equal pay in the City of London.

The precedent-setting ruling will not abolish the traditional discretionary bonus scheme, but it could force employers to be more transparent and show that they have not treated employees unfairly.