header-logo header-logo

18 February 2016
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Gender pay gap warning

Employers must take action now to provide for new requirements

New requirements to publish discrepancies in pay between men and women could be used as “ammunition” for equal pay claims against private sector employers, employment lawyers have warned.

By October 2016, employers with 250 or more employees in the UK will need to publish annual reports on their gender pay gap, to comply with regulations introduced under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Last week, the government published its response to its consultation, Closing the Gender Pay Gap. Further responses are due by 11 March 2016.

To comply with the new rules, it is likely that employers will need to publish the difference in mean and median pay between genders, the difference in mean bonus pay between genders, and the proportion of each gender receiving bonus pay. The data must be reported within 12 months on the company website. No civil penalties have been proposed, although non-compliant companies may be publicly named.

Andrew Taggart, partner at Herbert Smith Freehills, says: “Employers should take action now to prepare for the changes required by the regulations and be aware that pay information may be used as ammunition for equal pay claims.

“Until now, these claims have been restricted largely to the public sector where pay information is often more readily available. However, everything could be about to change and private sector employers may find they have very significant liabilities for which they have not made adequate provision.”

Paul Epstein QC, of Cloisters chambers, says: “The information employers will be obliged to publish is likely to help their current and former employees understand whether they can bring successful equal pay claims.”

Issue: 7687 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll