THE statutory sick pay (SSP) regime discriminates against women and black and ethnic minority (BAME) workers, a union argued in the High Court today. 

In a legal action brought against the government, the Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) claimed that the earning threshold for SSP – £120 a week – amounts to indirect discrimination against women, BAME and gig economy workers.

The TUC estimates there are two million workers in Britain who are not eligible to receive SSP, of whom 70 per cent are women. 

IWGB also argued that these groups are more likely to struggle on SSP, which is just £95.85 a week, even if they qualify for it. 

Research by union GMB in March found that black workers are more likely to be totally reliant on SSP than white workers. 

IWGB general secretary Jason Moyer-Lee said that sick pay has “never been more important” than it is now. 

“So it must be extended to cover more people and set at a rate which actually allows workers to go off sick and follow public health advice,” he said. 

“It is unfortunate we have had to litigate to make these points, but this government has left us and our members with no choice.”

The arrangement for statutory sick pay fell under scrutiny at the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis due to fears that the financial impact of lost wages could disincentivise workers to stay at home and self-isolate. 

This is believed to have played a role in the death of Emanuel Gomes, a cleaner at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), who had continued going to work despite suffering coronavirus-like symptoms. 

Cleaners at the MoJ are employed by outsourcing company OCS and only receive statutory sick pay.

Today’s legal action was also brought by two Uber drivers who argued that self-employed workers in the gig economy have also been discriminated against.

The drivers claimed that the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme, the package rolled out by Chancellor Rishi Sunak, is “significantly worse” than the job retention scheme. 

They argue that the scheme covers fewer months and does not cover other costs that self-employed workers must often fork out for. 

IWGB member and claimant on the case Ahmad Adiatu said: “With virtually no income coming in, we’ve been struggling to get by and we are behind on our rent.

“My wife, who is now breastfeeding, has even had to sell her phone in order to buy food for herself and the children.”

The Treasury was contacted for comment.