header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Playing catch up— gender pay gap reporting

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
30 June 2017 / Amy Douthwaite , Marian Bloodworth
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Amy Douthwaite & Marian Bloodworth consider the implications of the gender pay gap reporting rules

  • Calculating the threshold number of employees and working out who is in scope is not as simple as it might first appear.
  • The internal and external implications of gender pay gap reporting should not be underestimated.

The Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) came into force on 6 April 2017, requiring larger employers to produce an annual report on their gender pay gap.

The first report must be published by 4 April 2018 on data as at the snapshot date of 5 April 2017 and annually thereafter. There are many legal and practical issues for employers to consider.

The basic obligation

Employers with 250 or more employees as at 5 April must report the following metrics:

  • the difference in mean hourly pay of male and female employees;
  • the difference in median hourly pay of male and female employees;
  • the differencein mean bonus pay for the previous
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

mfg Solicitors—Philip Chapman

mfg Solicitors—Philip Chapman

Regional firm strengthens corporate team with partner hire

Switalskis—Sally Christey, Mathew Abiagom & Cyman Kaur

Switalskis—Sally Christey, Mathew Abiagom & Cyman Kaur

Commercial property team expands with trio of appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: What judging really demands
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll