ABSTRACT
Section 6(3) of the original SDA 1975 provided exceptions in all cases where the number of employees did not exceed five, and also where the employment was for the purposes of a private household. These wide exceptions were held to be contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive in Commission of the European Communities v UK.99 The ECJ reasoned that, as regards small undertakings with not more than five employees, it was not the case that in any undertaking of that size the sex of the worker would be a determining factor for the purposes of Art 2(2) of the Directive. However, it was recognised that the law must reconcile the principle of equal treatment with the fundamental principle of respect for private life. The SDA 1986 therefore repealed the provisions held unlawful by the European Court and introduced a new s 7(2)(ba) to the 1975 Act which is couched in far more restrictive terms. It provides a defence where:
... the job is likely to involve the holder of the job doing his work, or living, in a private home and needs to be held by a man because objection might reasonably be taken to allowing to a woman:
(i) the degree of physical or social contact with a person living in the home; or
(ii) the knowledge of intimate details of such a person’s life,
which is likely, because of the nature or circumstances of the job or of the home, which is allowed to, or available to, the holder of the job ...
