Equal Pay

This case shows the importance of having objective evidence to justify pay gaps. It’s not enough to claim that someone is “worth more”. Employers should document evidence which indicates the reasons behind pay decisions and should also monitor the impact of market forces which may change and therefore necessitate a change in pay.

“Like Work”

Samira Ahmed’s equal pay claim was based on the position that her work presenting Newswatch was “like work” compared to Jeremy Vine’s work presenting Points of View, and accordingly she should be paid the same. The Employment Tribunal found in her favour in December 2019, and the BBC reached a settlement with the claimant in February 2020.

Failure to rebut presumption

We have to interpret the result of this case with caution as it is a first tier decision, and hasn’t been tested by a higher court. Nevertheless, it’s a very good example of how employers may struggle if they don’t document the reasons for pay differentials. The semantics in this case are very important as it demonstrates the burden of proof; the Employment Tribunal didn’t find that Samira Ahmed was paid less because of her sex; it found that the BBC couldn’t prove that the pay differential was not related to her sex. The BBC failed to rebut the presumption that the difference in pay was caused by some other factor other than the difference of sex. The BBC did not provide sufficient evidence about what factors were relied on to determine the rates of pay for Jeremy Vine and Samira Ahmed. The BBC asserted that audience recognition was higher for Jeremy Vine, as was his public profile. In laymen’s terms, he could be described as more of a “star”. This could amount to an objective justification; nevertheless the Tribunal found that the BBC had not presented evidence as to how his being more of a “star” was a factor in setting his pay level.

Justification of Pay Differentials

In conclusion, an employer who wishes to use market forces to justify pay differentials must demonstrate a transparent rationale as the more opaque the employer’s decision-making the more difficulty it would find itself in when defending an equal pay claim.