The tribunal acknowledged that the decisions were driven by efforts to cut costs and boost profit. It ultimately ruled that the retailer had failed to demonstrate that lower pay was not the result of gender-based discrimination.
Next, which has 466 stores across the UK, argued that the difference in pay for the two roles was based on the market rate for each position.
Next's legal battle highlights the complexity of equal pay claims, particularly in publicly held companies where apparent meritocracy may mask underlying systemic pay disparities.
The ruling suggests that financial decisions cannot justify unequal pay rates over gender-based discrepancies, reinforcing the stance that equality laws must be upheld even in the face of market forces.
Collection
[
|
...
]