header-logo header-logo

02 July 2025
Issue: 8123 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination , Equality
printer mail-detail

Reform employment law to protect pay

Lawyers have called for mandatory gender pay gap reporting to be extended to cover race and disability when the government brings forward its Equality (Race and Disability) Bill

Responding this week to an Office for Equality and Opportunity call for evidence ahead of the Bill, CILEX president Yanthé Richardson said: ‘Tackling the pay inequality and discrimination that continues to persist in the UK when it comes to race and disability is a priority.

‘Mandatory reporting would not only provide valuable data to highlight where pay disparities are appearing and why, it would also drive behavioural change.’

In its response, CILEX (the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) recommended stronger penalties for equal pay breaches, and it suggested the government introduce an Independent Equality Pay Enforcement Unit, which could ‘significantly reduce the time and costs of litigation’.

CILEX also called for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to be given powers to enforce ‘strong and immediate sanctions’ for non-compliance. It suggested organisations such as charities and trade unions be able to bring equal pay claims on an employee’s behalf since many workers fear ‘retaliation or victimisation’.

Currently, businesses with at least 250 staff must report their gender pay gap data annually.

Employees can bring an equal pay claim on the basis of gender. If they believe they are paid less due to race or disability, however, they must bring a claim for discrimination, which can be more expensive.

CILEX urged the government to close a gap on combined and dual discrimination in the Equality Act 2010. Section 14 protects individuals from direct discrimination due to a combination of two protected characteristics. However, it has never been brought into force. Consequently, claimants must show their treatment is direct discrimination because of each of the characteristics taken separately, which is more expensive and time-consuming.

Issue: 8123 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination , Equality
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

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