“It’s the market rate” may no longer be enough to justify a pay difference.
Sara Hill of RoleMapper explains why recent equal pay cases are challenging justifications based on the market rate, business size or job title alone.
Essential viewing for HR, reward, employee relations and in-house legal teams.
Watch the full webinar free
This clip is from the InsideHR webinar How to Build Defensible Pay in the Age of Pay Transparency and AI, with Sara Hill, CEO, RoleMapper. In the full session: how to build a pay structure you can defend, with clear job architecture and the right use of AI, before transparency rules expose the gaps.
Short on time? Read the key takeaways from the full webinar.
Get alerts for new InsideHR webinars and videos: sign up at insidehr.uk.
Read the clip transcript
So recent case law has shown us that the bar for justifying pay differences is rising. So market pricing, which is what a lot of us used and have used to actually determine what a role should be paid. That alone is not has been considered by the courts of law to be not a valid gender neutral justification for pay. And also case law has shown that revenue and business size is also not a valid justification for setting base pay. And then case law’s also showing that actually just looking at job titles, that’s not a determinant for value.
Chernelle Vaughan is a Marketing Manager at HRreview, an HR news, opinion, and advice publication. She is an author and content creator who contributes articles and hosts podcasts covering contemporary workplace topics including employee experience, remote working, generational workplace dynamics, and organizational culture. She holds education from the University of Westminster and is based in Merton, England.
- Chernelle Vaughan
- Chernelle Vaughan
- Chernelle Vaughan
- Chernelle Vaughan
