header-logo header-logo

Reform employment law to protect pay

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll