Keir Starmer’s final move as prime minister may lead to a surge in discrimination claims. The change would let employees challenge pay differences between entirely different jobs if a tribunal considers them of “equal value.”
The government is seeking input on broadening the legal grounds for these claims to include race and disability. Workers in roles mainly filled by one racial group could sue if a tribunal decides their job equals the value of a better-paid position dominated by another group.
How tribunals decide job value
The idea of “work of equal value” already exists in the Equality Act for sex-based claims. It has resulted in notable cases, such as one that pushed Birmingham City Council into bankruptcy after female dinner staff argued their roles should match the pay of male refuse collectors.
In 2024, Next faced a similar outcome when a tribunal ruled its mostly female shop workers deserved the same base pay as warehouse staff, where men slightly outnumbered women. The company had offered 25,000 retail employees the option to switch to higher-paying warehouse jobs in 2021. Only seven accepted, and three left within a year.
The ruling highlighted how tribunals, rather than market forces, could dictate pay fairness between unrelated roles. One employee testified she preferred customer service and would need significantly more money to consider warehouse work.
Related: FTSE recruiter collapses after AI platform launch
Local governments prepare for costs
Expanding these claims may burden public budgets. Last month, the GMB union revealed over 4,000 women had joined equal-pay claims against Leeds City Council, seeking parity between teaching assistants and refuse workers. The potential costs could mirror Birmingham’s financial collapse.
Opponents argue the system distorts incentives. If jobs with different skills or working conditions are deemed equal by a tribunal, employers could face lawsuits regardless of economic realities. New Zealand faced a similar issue last year, with claims threatening billions in taxpayer costs. Instead of widening the rules, the country canceled existing cases and imposed stricter standards.
The UK’s proposal suggests a different path, one that may increase legal risks for employers and add pressure on local governments. The timing, buried in Starmer’s final days, has drawn attention. Critics warn it could distort hiring in sectors with natural demographic gaps.
For workers, the changes could provide new ways to seek fairness—but with the risk of turning pay disputes into unpredictable tribunal decisions rather than negotiated settlements.
