Research and analysis

The lived experience of pay discrimination on the basis of race and disability

Published 14 July 2026

This was published under the 2024 to 2026 Starmer Labour government

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

1. Executive summary

The government plans to end pay discrimination at work. This includes:

• making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people
• establishing an equal pay regulation and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions
• ensuring that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay

To understand the challenges and find the appropriate solutions in developing policy, the Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) commissioned this research to better understand the perspectives of people who have experienced pay discrimination, potential respondents to pay discrimination claims such as employers, and groups who provide support throughout the legal process. 

This research forms part of a wider information gathering exercise to understand the nature of pay discrimination, and to explore steps that can be taken to prevent pay discrimination and remove barriers to redress. It explored the lived experiences of pay discrimination on the basis of race or disability. It also included interviews with employers and support organisations to understand the wider context and systemic challenges. 

Employees in this research experienced pay discrimination by being lower paid than colleagues for equal work or receiving less favourable contractual terms (for example, days off). They also experienced broader discrimination impacting their pay, including being overlooked for progression, receiving fewer or less favourable shifts, or not accessing the same opportunities as others. Disability discrimination often occurred through a lack of reasonable adjustments which impacted pay, or through employers making assumptions about what disabled employees were capable of. Salary discrepancies were often uncovered ‘accidentally’ due to the lack of transparency in pay systems. 

A large number of people chose not to raise a formal complaint. Reasons included a lack of knowledge, emotional strain, fear of repercussions, and a belief that no real change would result. A particular challenge faced by some employees, often experiencing pay discrimination on the basis of race, was insecurity of their immigration status, which acted as another barrier to speaking out. Those who pursued formal processes often described them as distressing, drawn-out, and costly. This was reported as particularly challenging for some disabled people. While this research focused on race and disability pay discrimination, some employees also reflected on experiences of sex discrimination, discussing similar themes around women feeling like they needed to accept their position, and feeling sidelined by employers based on assumptions.

The legal process was viewed as inaccessible and adversarial. People found it difficult to understand what constituted a valid claim, how to gather evidence, and how to represent themselves effectively. Few were able to access legal advice or representation. Many spoke about the emotional and financial toll, and how the process often led to the breakdown of trust with their employer.

Outsourced workers faced particular challenges. More precarious employment and fear of losing their job acted as a strong deterrent. Other challenges included identifying instances of pay discrimination, with outsourced workers typically having less visibility of others’ pay and terms, and lack of clarity surrounding which policies applied to them.

Employers interviewed often did not see pay discrimination, regardless of the basis, as a standalone issue, instead seeing it as part of broader grievances. They described a desire to avoid tribunal cases due to reputational risks and cost, and favoured settlements. Employers acknowledged the need for greater pay transparency but highlighted difficulties in achieving this, especially around performance-based pay.

Support organisations confirmed that most employees seeking redress dropped out of the process before getting to tribunal or getting a just settlement with their employer. Barriers raised included:

• low legal awareness
• emotional burden
• unrealistic expectations of the tribunal service
• fear of retaliation, with limited capacity across the system to support employees adequately 

The organisations held mixed views on expanding equal pay legislation to cover race and disability. Some saw this as an opportunity for stronger protection, whereas others felt the current system was already too complex and inaccessible. Support organisations argued that improving the support available to employees would have a greater impact than legal reform alone.

The research highlighted systemic challenges, including:

• limited transparency around pay, which makes it difficult for employees to recognise and challenge unfair treatment
• limited understanding of employee’s rights and the routes available to enforce them
• the legal system being difficult to navigate, stressful to experience, and lacking adequate support at all stages

2. Introduction

This research would not have been possible without support from over 25 partner organisations who shared their insights regarding pay discrimination and helped recruit participants for the research. Researchers would like to express their gratitude to all of the organisations who contributed by sharing their views, sharing data where available and supporting with recruitment for lived experience research across their networks. We would like to give particular thanks to the following organisations for their valuable research and contributions which have been instrumental in shaping our findings:

• Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas)
• Chartered Management Institute (CMI)
• Disability.Inc.
• Employment Lawyer Association
• Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS)
• Leigh Day
• Race Equality Foundation
• Unison Union
• West of England Centre for Independent Living

See appendix 7.2 for the full list of organisations who have supported this research. 

2.1 Context

2.1.1 Definition of pay discrimination

Pay discrimination is when someone is paid less or receives less favourable terms relating to pay than another employee or worker for doing work of similar or the same value. This can include variations in basic pay, overtime rates, performance related pay (such as bonuses) and other benefits.

‘Equal pay’, as per the Equality Act 2010, is only applicable to sex. Equal pay legislation sets out that men and women in the same employment doing work rated as equivalent, or work of equal value, must receive equal pay, unless any difference in pay can be justified. 

This research explored lived experience of pay discrimination. It also explored lived experience of broader discrimination which impacts an individual’s pay. This included when an employee was given fewer professional opportunities compared to colleagues in a way which negatively impacted their pay, based on their protected characteristics. 

See appendix 7.4 for a list of important definitions.

2.1.2 Policy context

The government plans to end pay discrimination at work. This includes:

• making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people
• establishing an equal pay regulation and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions
• ensuring that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay

To understand the challenges and find the appropriate solutions in developing policy, OEO commissioned this research to better understand the perspectives of people who have experienced pay discrimination, potential respondents to pay discrimination claims such as employers, and groups who provide support throughout the legal process. 

This research forms part of a wider information gathering exercise to understand the nature of pay discrimination, and to explore steps that can be taken to prevent pay discrimination and remove barriers to redress.

2.2 Research questions 

This research aims to answer the following questions:

What can we learn about pay discrimination from people who have experienced it? This includes: 

• the process of making a claim
• the barriers encountered and the impact of these 
• how the relationship between employers and employees is impacted
• where the discrimination involved the failure to make reasonable adjustments

What can we learn from employers about pay discrimination? This includes:

• the experience having a claim made against them, including negotiating the legal hurdles
• the reasons for pay differentials that could amount to discrimination
• its impact
• how discrimination, including pay discrimination, can be prevented
• how the relationship between employers and employees is impacted by the experience of discrimination and seeking redress
• the attitudes of employers towards redress and enforcement

What can we learn from advisory and arbitration organisations about pay discrimination? This includes:

• the processes for making claims
• the barriers encountered
• the support available both for people who have experienced it and employers
• how claimants are supported through the process, including specifically those with impairments or disabilities

2.3 Research methodology and scope

2.3.1. Methodology

This research was done by The PSC, on behalf of OEO. It comprised of in-depth interviews with 3 categories of people:

• employees who felt that they had been subject to discrimination which impacted their pay, on the basis of their race or disability.

• employers and other potential respondents to discrimination claims – this included managers, human resource professionals, and in-house legal support

• individuals who support those who have experienced discrimination across various touchpoints – this included helpline advisors, lawyers, conciliators, and charities who work with specific groups of people

To ensure the research reached a wide and diverse range of individuals, recruitment took place through:

• working with partner organisations to make use of their networks – see appendix 7.2 for a list of organisations involved in this work
• “snow-ball” recruitment – asking every individual involved in the research to pass on communications to their networks, whether professional, or friends and family

All potential interviewees were invited to complete a brief questionnaire to understand their eligibility for the research, summarising their experiences. They were asked for their accessibility requirements and invited to a structured interview with a researcher. Interviews lasted 60 minutes, and were transcribed. Transcripts were analysed following a phenomenological approach^{[footnote 1]} to identify themes across individuals’ experiences.

Eligibility for the research was considered differently for the 3 categories of participants to the research. For the first, potential interviewees who indicated that they had experienced discrimination and that this had impacted their pay, were invited to interviews. After interviews, researchers then made a judgement about whether the experience described by the interviewee could be considered pay discrimination or broader discrimination impacting pay, taking an inclusive approach. For the second and third categories, eligibility was assessed based on the participant’s employer and role. 

To ensure appropriate data protection, transcripts were anonymised to prevent any direct or indirect identification, and no personal identifiable information was shared outside the immediate research team. All identifiable information on research participants will be deleted after the end of the research project. Interviewees were asked to sign consent forms to take part in the research. 

2.3.2 Composition of the sample

Researchers conducted a total of 61 interviews.

16 interviews were with employees with lived experience of pay discrimination based on their race, and 13 were with people with lived experience of pay discrimination based on their disability. These were to understand:

• their experiences of discrimination
• the actions taken in response to their experience
• the barriers to seeking legal redress

15 interviews were with employers to understand:

• their understanding of pay discrimination
• what mitigations are in place to prevent discrimination
• the process for responding to claims and challenges for respondents in the existing legal process

17 interviews were with individuals who support employees or employers to navigate seeking legal redress to understand:

• the nature of claims being seen in recent years
• challenges in existing legal processes and opportunities to improve this

Where a lived experience interview is used in this report to evidence a point, the interview is referred to as [###].

2.3.3 What lived experience research can tell you

Lived experience research provides an in-depth understanding of the subjective experiences of a small sample of people, which can add contextual understanding to wider themes. 

This research helps understand the experiences of employees who felt they had been subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their race or disability. 

It can also shine a light on how they seek redress for these experiences and the barriers to, or challenges, in doing so. This builds our understanding of the impact the internal and legal redress process has not only on claimants, but on employers and support organisations as well. This can also help to inform potential actions to better support people experiencing discrimination.

2.3.4 Limitations of lived experience research

Lived experience research is not intended to provide a view of prevalence and trends of discrimination in itself and should not be considered as representative of all individuals’ experiences. Limitations to this research approach include:

Subjectivity and bias: As the research asks individuals to recount their personal experiences and views, there is a level of participant bias in which personal memories and accounts can be selective or distorted. The interpretation of information shared, including the identification of whether cases amount to pay discrimination, can also be influenced by the researcher’s own background, assumptions, and worldview, resulting in researcher bias. Participant bias is unavoidable with lived experience research, and researchers have included summaries of each experience to provide further context (see appendix 7.3). To mitigate against researcher bias, each interview followed structured discussion guides and was auto-transcribed.

Sample size: The sample size is limited across each stakeholder category, as is often the case in phenomenological research. This research will therefore reveal experiences and interpretations of discrimination and of seeking redress. It should not in itself be relied on to assess prevalence or patterns of discrimination and may not be representative of the views and experiences of the wider population. 

Sampling: Interviewees were reached through partner organisations and self-referred via a form. The sample therefore is skewed towards individuals who have engaged with support organisations or have sought redress in some way. To mitigate this as much as possible, the research has engaged with a wide range of organisations, including those who support specific groups, such as migrant workers and those working in the hospitality sector, for instance. The research also used a “snowball” sampling approach, asking individuals who engaged in the research to pass on communications to their networks. While this helped cast a wide net with regards to the recruitment of individuals, it remains the case that the sample may not fully represent the most seldom-heard groups.

3. Insights from employees

In this report, the term “employee” is used as a shorthand to mean individuals with lived experience of pay discrimination, whether those individuals are employees or outsourced workers.

3.1 Understanding experiences of pay discrimination

This research included 29 interviews with people with lived experience of pay discrimination or broader discrimination impacting pay. Based on these interviews, this discrimination happened in various ways:

Nature of pay discrimination	Count
Being paid less than a colleague or not receiving the same benefits, when doing work of equal value.	4
Not receiving the same opportunities for paid overtime as colleagues, being given less favourable shift patterns or not having access to the health and safety equipment required to effectively do their role.	3
Downgrading of role, impacting long-term pay.	1

Nature of broader discrimination impacting pay	Count
Not having access to the same opportunities and training to support progression within an organisation in comparison to colleagues, impacting earning potential.	9
Being passed over for promotion despite being the most experienced or qualified for a role.	7
Being put through disciplinary proceedings or unfavourable performance reviews for something other colleagues would not have been disfavoured by, impacting progression and pay.	6

3.1.2 Sector specific findings

Local government: Researchers spoke to 5 employees from within local government, who discussed roles being ‘pigeon holed’ for specific individuals within the organisation [018, 030, 100]. This contributed to the feeling of limited progression or favouritism, where those closest to management had more opportunities.

Health and care: Researchers spoke to 2 employees from the care sector who talked about experiencing indirect impacts on their pay, such as being given unfavourable shifts and having their overtime limited, or being assigned to service users that are furthest away when they have to cover mileage [032, 034]. 

Public sector, more generally: Employees from public sector organisations often reflected that having pay bands, and transparency about the pay for those bands, did not prevent pay discrimination. In fact, employees discussed instances of being: 

• on different pay bands compared to colleagues they felt were doing similar work or work of equal value [030]
• on a lower pay band than they felt they should be on given their level of responsibility [028, 074] 
• on the same broad band but paid less [009]: “if we’re on the same banding and I’m doing more than you, shouldn’t I be paid more than all of you?” in a context where the employee is actually paid less [009]

3.1.2 Findings specific to race discrimination

A common theme of discrimination on the basis of race impacting pay was ethnic minority employees reporting being put through disciplinary proceedings for behaviours that they felt White counterparts could “get away with”, impacting their immediate pay and opportunities for progression [011, 070, 074, 088]: 

“But it was OK for the White English nurse, they could do anything and wouldn’t be caught, you know?” [011] 

Employees’ feelings that they did not have the same opportunities to progress in relation to White colleagues were compounded by the sense that they had to do more work to prove they deserved to have their job [072], and needing to feel grateful [083]. Employees described 2 extremes in either having to do more work without the resource or team to do so [088, 100] or having high stakes tasks or responsibilities taken away from them [070, 088]. 

Some employees reflected on parallels and intersection with sex, with one feeling that being a woman also contributed to her feeling taken for granted and needing to do additional work compared to White male colleagues [083], and another feeling like women were more likely to be primed to accept bad behaviour [039].

3.1.3 Findings specific to disability discrimination

The discrimination experienced by employees on the basis of their disability was often linked to employers failing to make reasonable adjustments, in turn impacting their ability to perform within their role [012, 018, 030, 039, 063, 102]. Employees felt this was due to a lack of understanding among employers around making reasonable adjustments [047, 102], particularly for non-visible physical disabilities or neurodiversity (ADHD, autism, dyslexia) [012, 028, 047, 71, 102]: 

“I think people just don’t know how to support disabilities that aren’t seen.” [047] 

Employees sometimes felt employers were unwilling to make reasonable adjustments, emphasising the need for ongoing discussion between employees and employers [018, 039, 071]: 

“it’s a lack of understanding on their part, and quite frankly, willingness” [071] 

While some talked about employers failing to make reasonable adjustments, others felt that employers had made decisions based on assumptions of what would be best for them. This resulted in roles being downgraded, employees being pushed to seek medical retirement, or hours being reduced when people returned from sick leave [012, 018, 039, 071]. Employees felt that this was often explained away as a well-intentioned concern for their health and safety or wellbeing [018, 063, 077]: 

“I’m just looking out for you” [063]

This resulted in some employees returning to less responsibility than they previously had [018]. One employee made a parallel with sex and maternity discrimination, where she experienced sidelining based on both her disability and a perception that she would start having children [063].

Employees also discussed employers making assumptions about what they were capable of based on their disability, and limiting access to opportunities as a result, ultimately impacting on their confidence and ability to do the job. One employee recalled being told: 

“you need to adjust your expectations for your career because as a disabled person, you’ll never achieve what an able bodied person would be able” [089] 

3.2 The process of seeking redress 

The process of seeking redress for perceived unfavourable treatment varied across the 29 interviewees in the steps they took, who they engaged with and how far they decided to pursue the process. This was largely caused by the barriers explored in section 3.4. 

Common stages in the journey included:

• feeling a sense of wrongdoing or unfair treatment
• seeking initial support from informal networks (friends, family, and colleagues)
• going through mandatory early conciliation with their employer, and submitting the employment tribunal form (ET1) – 8 interviewees have pursued legal action, with one still in the early conciliation process, and 5 more in the process of considering their next steps
• going through one or several preliminary hearings
• the employment tribunal

People also reached out for support or advice to understand their experience and understand what could be done to challenge it. This included reaching out to helplines such as Acas, Citizens Advice, and the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS). These support organisations often advise employees to exhaust all internal grievance processes before taking a legal action. 20 out of 29 interviewees reported engaging with one or more support organisations.

People also followed the internal grievance process within their organisation. This often included raising a grievance, an investigation taking place, and an appeal being raised if an employee was not happy with the outcome of the investigation. Sometimes this included mediation. 20 out of 29 interviewees reported going through an internal grievance process.

Employees’ motivations for seeking legal redress varied. A common motivator was wanting acknowledgement that they had been treated unfairly and wanting to prevent this happening to anyone else in the future [047, 074]: 

“I don’t even want money here. I just want to be treated fairly” [074] 

For cases involving disability specifically, support organisations noted that motivation can be slightly different, with employees sometimes seeking compensation as they are too unwell to go back to work [017].

Interview 070: Navigating the current legal process

While moving to a new role in the public sector, this interviewee, a Black woman, brought decades of experience and a PhD to her role. Despite her qualifications when starting the role, her decision to take a pay cut to join, and being identified as a top performer in her first year, she felt underpaid from the outset and considered herself overlooked for a potential pay rise. A job evaluation led to a further reduction in pay. Promises to review her salary were not honoured, and she reported being denied credit for her work. She felt that her lower pay was discrimination on the basis of her race. Over time, the situation caused severe stress, burnout, and a sense of professional isolation, culminating in her feeling sidelined from the projects she created.

She decided to take structured, formal action. She found union support ineffective, waiting over a year for a lawyer to speak to her and advising her to drop her case, and the grievance processes delayed, with her employer not responding to her grievance for months and sending her holding answers. She decided to independently pursue legal redress, collecting her own evidence. Her efforts led the organisation to reassess her role, leading to a new salary. She considered this a rectification rather than a promotion. She felt her efforts encouraged others facing similar issues to voice their concerns, leading them to secure the promotions they felt they deserved and starting broader internal change.

She stressed the importance of documenting everything, staying resilient, and challenging unfair treatment rather than walking away. She believes systemic change is needed, particularly more accountability for unions, flexible support services, and safe and anonymous ways for employees to report discrimination and poor practice.

What does this interview show? This interview demonstrates how grievance processes are often slow and discouraging, and union support can be ineffective, leaving employees to navigate complex issues alone.

3.3 The impact on those involved in the process of seeking redress

3.3.1 Impact on the individual 

Employees talked about the considerable impacts of both the initial experience of discrimination and the experience of seeking redress. The most common impact highlighted was the emotional toll of navigating both the internal grievance process and the legal system [011, 012, 030, 047, 048, 070, 072, 077, 102]. Navigating these processes was felt to trigger or exacerbate mental health challenges such as stress, anxiety and depression for a number of employees, which in some cases presented as physical symptoms. Employees reported that this could be compounded by financial concerns, both as a result of the impact on pay, and financial costs associated with legal representation. Some employees reported worry around losing their income or their homes, as a result of the discrimination and of the process of seeking redress [028, 030].

Employees experiencing pay discrimination also reported feeling devalued [009,032, 070, 083] due to not being recognised for the work they were doing, especially in relation to their peers. This was sometimes compounded by the fact that they felt the responsibility to challenge or seek redress rested with them, which had longer term impacts on people’s confidence [012, 071, 083]. Some interviewees experiencing broader discrimination which impacted their pay (for example, barriers to progression) talked about how this knock in confidence followed them into future roles, taking lower paying roles elsewhere [028, 036, 088, 100]: 

“There’s this massive regression of people[…], it keeps going on and they regress or recluse into a comfortable role, which is what I’ve done” [088] 

“I often undersell myself and feel that there is a bit of Imposter Syndrome there” [100] 

The impact in confidence and resulting move into lower paid roles or roles with less responsibility elsewhere was also anecdotally highlighted by a lawyer representing respondents [084].

While the negative impacts were consistent across interviewees, some employees talked about how their experiences made them more resilient and enabled them to speak up for themselves and others [028, 100]: 

“I’m proud of the fact that I’ve got quite a bit of resilience and I want to continue and fight for people like me” [028]

3.3.2 Impact on relationships

After raising a grievance or making a tribunal claim, employees talked about the loss of trust in their employers and frustration with ‘performative’ responses or a lack of meaningful change. For example, some employees were critical of schemes such as ‘Disability Confident Employers’, which were perceived as more performative than impactful [028, 030, 047]. In one instance, an employee shared how their ‘Disability Confident Employer’ failed to make reasonable adjustments for him, and failed to take what he thought were the full rectifying steps despite a successful grievance [047]. 

In addition, interviewees felt like there was a lack of consequence or accountability for the individuals involved in the discrimination [058, 063, 089]. One employee talked about being told the person who had treated her unfavourably would be disciplined and moved on, but this never happened [089]. Another reflected on accountability being particularly challenging in smaller organisations with less formalised HR functions: 

“Accountability is not really there. Like, who would be my HR person? The HR person was my line manager who was getting more money than me for doing the same work. There’s nowhere to go in the small organisation.” [083]

Several interviewees described that seeking redress created tensions with managers [009, 012, 023, 026, 028, 032, 047, 058, 077, 102]. Some felt that their treatment worsened as a result of seeking redress, for example by being singled out in meetings or by managers being dismissive and distant. Employees also talked about shifts in relationships with their colleagues, describing the grievance as the “elephant in the room” [102]. This was especially the case where they felt that colleagues did not show support or speak up for the employee who had experienced discrimination [011, 026, 077]. 

These deteriorating relationships often led employees to leave [009, 036, 064, 072, 074, 083]: 

“At the end of the day, you can’t change management. The best thing you can do is leave.” [023] 

For those who decided to stay, it sometimes acted as a deterrent to seeking further redress: 

“It’s very uncomfortable. That’s why I’m [wondering] if I do want to take it to the next step” [058]

3.4 Barriers and challenges for employees seeking redress

Barriers to seeking redress and reaching a remedy happened across all stages of an individual’s journey, from identifying the experience and seeking redress within their organisation, through to making a legal claim. 

3.4.1 Identifying the experience of discrimination

The first challenge in identifying pay discrimination, as noted by employees, employers, and support organisations, was the lack of transparency around pay. This was felt to be due to opaque pay structures within organisations, and employees not speaking about pay or not being aware of their colleagues’ pay [009, 023]. This means that disparities in pay were often only uncovered by employees ‘by accident’. For example, this sometimes happened after an employee had left the organisation by seeing job advertisements for the role they held previously, or via informal conversations with colleagues.

In addition to transparency, employees raised how discrimination of any kind on the basis of race or disability was perceived as insidious and hard to prove [009, 012, 083]. This led to some people feeling like their experiences were not valid or people would not believe them, or only realising the extent of their experience once they had removed themselves from the situation. For example, one interviewee described the instances of discrimination as:

“Quite subtle. And if you don’t actually track or report or note them down. It just looks like you’re being really petty.” [023]

Another talked about how their experiences were often a build up of smaller incidents, with pay being just one element: 

“It’s not a clear jigsaw. It’s actually I’ve got all these pieces from separate jigsaws, but together I think they make a master plan of what is going on” [012] 

Though employees felt like they were being treated disfavourably, including by being underpaid, it was often difficult for them to meet the evidence threshold to prove that their experiences were on the basis of their protected characteristic: 

“I think race has a part to do with it, but I think it’s really hard to kind of quantify what that part would be. I was definitely the only person that looked like me in that organisation.” [083] 

“It is really hard to prove. I don’t think I’d have the evidence to actually prove that it’s racism” [100]. “I don’t think I’ve ever said ‘I feel like I’ve been discriminated against because of my autism’, because then they’re going to turn around and be, like, prove it and you can’t prove a feeling” [071]

Most employees who engaged with support organisations offering advice, such as the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS), Citizens Advice or Acas, felt that this support helped them to make sense of the treatment they experienced and the possible next steps.

3.4.1.1 Findings specific to race discrimination

In the early stages of identifying and understanding discrimination, some interviewees noted the challenge of feeling as if they should be lucky to be in the position they are in, and pressured to not complain [083, 088]: 

“I was made to feel, and you’ve probably heard this many times, that I was lucky to be there in the first place” and “why would you want to rustle the feathers if you are getting by with what you’ve got?” [088] 

Interview 088: Barriers to taking any informal or formal action

Having spent over a decade in a public function, this interviewee led high-profile projects and managed significant risk. As a Sikh man, he felt repeatedly overlooked for training, resources and progression. He felt that opportunities, including training courses which were required to move onto the next grade, were regularly given to less experienced White colleagues, which he believed impacted his pay during his career with the organisation. He felt that his visible identity as a Sikh man appeared to mark him out as “non-conforming” in a culture he viewed as favouring conformity. Over time, this treatment left him feeling isolated and undervalued.

He chose not to raise a grievance, believing that as an employee from an ethnic minority background he was expected to feel “lucky” to be there. Past experiences and organisational culture suggested to him that speaking up would risk retaliation or disciplinary action, something he saw as disproportionately affecting colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds. Instead, he eventually left the organisation and took a pay cut, prioritising wellbeing over what he describes as a “toxic” environment. He now views his experience as part of a wider pattern where people from underrepresented backgrounds choose to step back rather than stay and fight a losing battle.

He argues that equality requires more than non-discrimination policies: it needs proactive, structural support for those starting at a disadvantage. 

What does this interview show? This interview shows how cultural barriers in an organisation and perceived risks of speaking out can strongly deter people from seeking redress with their employer.

3.4.1.2 Findings specific to disability discrimination

Disabled people often reported not feeling believed or taken seriously when explaining how their impairment impacted them at work and when asking for reasonable adjustments [028, 063]: 

“There was no support there whatsoever, no understanding, not believed. No accommodations, no nothing. You’re just met with resistance that you’re wasting people’s time.” [028] 

Instead of being given reasonable adjustments, some interviewees reported being put on sick leave [028]. If they followed the internal grievance process or spoke up about experiences, some interviewees reported their employers moved them to a different team, which sometimes felt like hiding from the problem [012, 063, 077]. 

3.4.2 Seeking redress within an employee’s organisation

Advocacy and support organisations often advise employees to exhaust all internal grievance processes before taking a legal action. This can come with challenges.

The first challenge reported was a lack of clarity around what the internal process entails. Interviewees reflected that the process was often unstructured and difficult to navigate [009, 036, 054, 071, 072, 074, 083] with added complexity from the use of legal jargon: 

“The language that is used sometimes in some of these disciplinaries and grievances and all of that can easily confuse a person” [074] 

Individuals noted that the process can often take months, requiring significant effort and commitment, with one interviewee saying:

“It’s taking hours. Three days last week.” [089] 

Some employees felt like employers were purposefully prolonging the process [070, 074]: 

“They knew from the beginning they were wrong. But they were playing a game to frustrate me to think that I’ll withdraw because of frustration.” [070] 

Some were not following the timeframes outlined in their own policies [102]. They reported that the experience was made worse due to limited support to navigate the process [018, 030, 047, 063, 077].

Some employees [048, 083] suggested that unstructured internal processes were a particular challenge in smaller businesses that may not have a HR team to support grievance processes. This was corroborated by support organisations [007, 051, 082], and employers [103, 106] who identified start-ups and scaleups as an area where policies and procedures may not be in place yet: 

“So you are kind of making it up as you go along…You’re creating the structures as you grow” [106]

Employees also noted frustrations with the actions of managers and HR in the process, feeling that employers were not engaging, and made people feel disregarded or not listened to [018, 039, 060, 070, 074]. Employees talked about a lack of trust in HR, due to what they perceived was a limited ability to help [036, 072, 077, 083] or a lack of impartiality in the process. Some employees were also made to feel like they were overreacting or being overly sensitive: 

“Sometimes I felt like I’m making a fuss over nothing, that I couldn’t tell if he was taking my side or the manager’s side” [077] 

Submitting an internal grievance was often as far as employees were willing to go, especially if navigating this time-consuming and complex process did not result in a resolution or action from their organisation [026, 039, 054, 070, 072, 074]. Some employees reported being disillusioned with the system and not having the energy or motivation to challenge things further, often choosing to leave [009, 036, 064, 072, 074, 083]. For some, this had negative impacts on their career progression as they ended up taking lower paying roles elsewhere [028, 036, 088, 100] 

Some employees opted to leave before even going through the grievance process. Reasons cited include a belief that no change was possible [088], a desire to avoid damaging relationships or ‘burning bridges’ by raising a complaint with HR or management [009, 023, 083], a lack of awareness that filing a complaint was an option and insufficient knowledge of available support routes [083], feeling unsupported when attempting to address issues informally [077, 047], and concerns that the process would be too emotionally challenging [011, 047]. 

3.4.2.1 Findings specific to race discrimination

Some employees on visas felt obligated to stay in jobs where they were experiencing discriminatory treatment due to their race, nationality or immigration status, for fear of losing their right to stay in the country [023, 032]. This pay discrimination can present as not paying overtime to employees on a sponsorship and giving them unfavourable shift patterns, compared to UK nationals, for example [032].

Immigration status was also a significant barrier to raising challenges internally or via legal action. For example, employees felt that seeking redress could have consequences for their sponsorship with an organisation or for their status more widely [032, 034, 060]: 

“They knew that we were vulnerable. Because we’re under [their] sponsorship, so they knew that we wouldn’t go anywhere.” [032] 

Some reported their employer trying to charge them a sponsorship fee when leaving the company, acting as a further deterrent [032, 034], as well as threatening to call the Home Office regarding their immigration status: 

“They said they are going to let the Home Office know that I’ve left the job” [034]. Some participants found union support particularly helpful to understand their rights and challenge this treatment [032,034] 

Some employees felt that their immigration status made employers more confident that they would not ‘fight back’ [011, 023, 032, 034]. 

3.4.2.2 Findings specific to disability discrimination

For disabled employees, their disability often played a part in making it more challenging to seek internal redress. 

One employee specifically discussed the need for reasonable adjustments to navigate the internal grievance and legal processes, expressing apprehension: 

“Quite often I can’t remember my words or remember the right thing to say at the right time. So the thought of being in those meetings on my own, made me not want to go ahead” [102]

3.4.3 Making a legal claim 

3.4.3.1 Barriers to making a legal claim

A commonly cited barrier to making an employment tribunal claim was lack of awareness and knowledge. Firstly, employees often reported having a sense of wrongdoing, but found it difficult to match up their experiences with legal terminology, impacting their confidence in the validity of their case [012, 100]: 

“So it’s a really tricky thing to be in it and speak up because actually, how do you check whether that is something that is discrimination, would it be classed as discrimination?” [012] 

This was compounded by the often insidious or subtle nature of the experience of pay discrimination, where employees found it difficult to prove that their less favourable pay was due to their protected characteristic. A number of employees also reported that they would not know what support was available to them or the routes they could investigate to seek redress [011, 012, 028, 077, 083]. Employees talked about being passed between different support organisations based on who could help: 

“I’m just like being passed back and forth and it’s just like someone help me. Someone give me an answer or at least like give me something” [071]

In addition to a lack of awareness of available routes for seeking redress, a number of interviewees talked about being deterred from seeking redress by personal experiences [047, 071]. They felt disillusioned with the system, not believing it would achieve anything meaningful. Interviewees said that they would be willing to challenge their employer about their experience if they thought that things could change [074, 088] and if they were sufficiently invested in the role they were doing, but several employees said they did not feel it would be worth it [009, 023, 058, 064, 072, 074, 083]. Some reported that they would rather leave: 

“At the end of the day, you can’t change management. The best thing you can do is leave.” [023] 

Employees were concerned about ‘burning bridges’, which acted as another barrier to seeking redress, whether internally or externally. Many raised the fear of consequences and not wanting to ‘rock the boat’ [009, 011, 023, 039, 047, 060, 063, 071, 083], especially if they were going to have to continue working with those involved in the discriminatory behaviour [063] or in small industries where reputation would follow you [083]: 

“I felt that my progression had been stunted—first of all by my disability, but also, what rumours are like… you can’t keep things quiet.” [039]

This was felt to be especially difficult when employees were speaking out against someone more senior or well-known [012, 063]. 

Employees discussed external factors that deterred them from taking legal action. This included negative experiences of friends or colleagues who had navigated the legal process previously, an employer having a reputation as combative or difficult to engage with in previous employment tribunals [102], or feeling discouraged by HR [018, 026]: 

“[HR] said because it is a very, very long, awful process. If you go down the tribunal route, she said there’ll be lots of face to face meetings and it’s very hard” [018]. 

Employees also discussed how employers often pushed for claims to be settled ‘amicably’ and outside of the tribunal. While this led to an agreement, employees often felt pressure to accept [012, 030, 048, 060, 070].  Within our sample, the majority of people who took a settlement also signed an NDA. Individuals felt this silenced them  [012, 030, 048]: 

“So they said, ‘Well, OK, we’ll pay you off, but you’re not allowed to ever talk about this again’” [012]

While employees had fewer reflections regarding best practice to help them feel more confident to raise pay issues, some reflected on how helpful the union was in supporting them [032, 034, 100, 102], and the positive impact of being supported by colleagues or managers [100, 102]. One employee also talked about the benefits of being in a group experiencing similar treatment [060]. 

Interview 012: Settlements and non disclosure agreements as a barrier

While working in a role she was very passionate about, and demonstrating strong performance over a number of years, this interviewee experienced prolonged disability discrimination after developing a serious mobility condition. She reported that her requests for basic adjustments, such as a suitable sitting arrangement, were repeatedly denied, leading to further pain and difficulty working. She felt that her colleagues and senior staff responded with dismissiveness and microaggressions, including inappropriate comments about her pregnancy and disability. Her contract was ultimately not renewed, and while others in the same team were moved onto a new project, she was offered a downgraded role at a different institution, despite performing what she felt was the same work.

After going on maternity leave, she pursued internal and legal routes to redress, supported initially by her union and then paying for a solicitor after feeling that the union did not have the resources to support her. She discovered what she describes as derogatory internal messages about her pregnancy and disability, adding to her claim. Her employer settled the case before tribunal, but required her to sign a non-disclosure agreement. While the settlement provided financial relief, she felt silenced and disillusioned. She noted that the nature of her contract and other factors in her life made her feel pressured to accept a settlement. She stressed the emotional toll and long-term impact of her experience on her own confidence and her trust in a future workplace.

What does this interview show? The interview shows how a pattern of ongoing discrimination coupled with a fixed-term contract and financial pressures can lead to significant emotional toll and play a part in the pressure an employee may feel to settle.

3.4.3.2 Challenges navigating the legal process

The most common barrier identified to seeking legal redress was cost [009, 012, 026, 028, 048, 071, 074, 102], particularly the costs of legal representation, especially as legally aided representation is not in scope at the Employment Tribunal.  This resulted in a number of people navigating the process unrepresented, which interviewees described as extremely challenging: 

“So I went as far as I could with a no cost option of the Union, but it just wasn’t enough. So there had to be a cost, you know, […] we didn’t have anything to draw on for that.” [012] 

In contrast, employers were perceived as having the resources and funds for legal representation: 

“I cannot fight with the big company who has the money or the best lawyer to fight against you” [048] 

To mitigate against this, employees who were unrepresented sought new ways to navigate the process such as looking at forums or using Artificial Intelligence to complete their forms: 

“I had to do everything myself – I didn’t have a lawyer. I used Chat GPT. I asked Chat GPT how to fill out forms, everything. I got the paid version and just moved forward with its help.” [060]

Other challenges in taking a case through tribunal included the tight time constraints to raise a discrimination claim: the tribunal must receive a discrimination claim within 3 months minus one day of the first discriminatory act mentioned in the claim (noting that equal pay claims based on sex follow a slightly different process). Employees felt at risk of missing this window due to the length of internal grievance processes [070, 102]. 

The length of time required to navigate both internal grievance processes and a tribunal was in itself felt to be a challenge. Employees felt that the whole legal process was often “dragged out” or took too long to reach a resolution, which contributed to people dropping out along the way [026, 048]: 

“The trial dragged on for over a year and I had to pay a lot of money to the solicitors” [048]. 

In addition, some interviewees reflected that some steps in the process felt unnecessary or unhelpful, for example early conciliation: 

“It didn’t go anywhere. I can’t really remember it if I’m honest. It didn’t fix anything.” [012]

Many described the emotional toll of navigating what was felt to be an adversarial and difficult process. Coupled with the length of the process, this often resulted in interviewees dropping out ahead of the tribunal due to not having the energy to ‘fight’ anymore [032, 034, 102]. Some interviewees raised concerns around whether they were ‘strong enough’ for the process: 

“I’m not a confrontational person. I’m not a fan of confrontation, and I suppose part of me gets scared of doing it. I’m stepping out of my comfort zone.” [018] 

This was made worse by negative experiences of the support available, including navigating how to work with solicitors [012]. There were also mixed experiences of working with unions: some employees valued the access to skilled individuals who could help them [100, 102]. However, others questioned the capacity of Unions to support them and the partiality of representation from workplace union stewards, who may know the potential claim respondents [012, 028, 038, 047]: 

“The University Union helped me as far as they could, but I just don’t think that they had the expertise of the time. They were supportive, but I went elsewhere.” [012] 

“Her e-mail address was the same as the organisation. They’re all friends with each other. They all knew each other” [028]

3.4.4 Findings specific to race discrimination

The barriers and challenges to making a claim which were specific to employees experiencing pay discrimination on the basis of race were, on the whole, similar to the particular barriers they faced seeking internal redress. For some, insecurity related to immigration status was a particular challenge, both for raising internal grievances and seeking legal redress [032, 034, 070, 074]: 

“With the Tier 5 visa, they can’t change jobs. They’re tied to one employer and completely under their control. If they get fired, that’s it – they can’t get another job.” [060]

3.4.5 Findings specific to disability discrimination

Similar to internal processes, some employees felt that their disability was an additional challenge to navigate the legal process. One employee raised the challenge of completing the paperwork: 

“the neurodiverse people, to fill forms out and doing this that and the other is not going to work for us” [028]

In addition, the pressure to settle and sign non-disclosure agreements was felt to be particularly acute for disabled people, with some describing the high costs associated with life altering disabilities [012, 030]: 

“But you know, if I had some more money in the bank, if I had, like a bit more of a security, if I hadn’t got like a brand new baby, if I hadn’t felt so traumatised by the whole thing, maybe I would have taken that on, but I think. When you, it feels like quite a lot to go through and potentially lose” [012] 

Support organisations echoed this point, noting how compensation could be part of an employee’s motivation for taking a claim forward, particularly if they needed to fund care and felt they could not come back to work after their experience led to a breakdown in the relationship with their employers [017]. 

3.4.5 Additional contextual factors

Interviews with employees highlighted some additional barriers for specific cohorts of the population. This included people whose first language is not English, particularly around the navigation of an already complex legal process [060, 074]. 

People with neurodiversity also reported finding the grievance and legislative process particularly difficult, especially understanding what was available from support organisations and whether this was accessible for all: 

“You’ve already limited anyone trying to make a change… forms aren’t going to work for us.” [028] 

Contract type also factored into employees’ or workers’ ability to seek redress, with agency staff or contractors reporting feeling like they had fewer rights or ability to challenge experiences when they did arise, or they would be let go [054, 060, 074]: 

“But no one knows what to do. First reason, they [coworkers who are also seasonal workers provided by international recruiters] don’t know the language. Second, they’re all afraid they’ll be fired.” [060] 

This was linked to more general feelings of precarity of employment in agency or contracted jobs: 

“I got a job through an agency. I know it was a risk, but what I wasn’t expecting was to be let go after 2 weeks.” [054] 

“He took her from my department and he threw her in another department in a band that was a lower grade than she was currently at.[…] She was a contractor staff, which is why he could do that to her.” [074] 

This sometimes led to feelings of helplessness: 

“She let go and she accepted what what was given to her” [074]

These experiences can be exacerbated by the employer not engaging with complaints or grievances put to them, through not engaging in conciliation [060] or not following up on reports or complaints [074], where it can feel like there is little the employee can do. Although this was reported by a range of different employees under different contract types, this is likely to be particularly challenging for workers on insecure contracts to navigate.

3.5 Conclusions

People who experienced pay discrimination faced significant emotional, financial, and structural barriers when attempting to seek redress, often encountering opaque pay structures, complex grievance procedures, and an inaccessible legal system. These challenges not only deterred many from pursuing justice but also led to lasting repercussions on their confidence, career progression, and trust in employers. Some interviewees indicated that they opted to leave their positions, often to the detriment of their careers, rather than pursue redress or resolution. 

Specific challenges in cases of race discrimination included the perception from employees that they should feel “grateful” for their position, which deterred them from seeking redress, including informally within their company. Challenges to seeking redress were particularly exacerbated for recent migrants. Their more precarious immigration status acted as a deterrent from speaking up for fear of losing their visa, and they faced challenges such as language barriers and lack of understanding of the legal system.

Disabled people also faced distinct challenges regarding pay discrimination. Broader disability discrimination impacting pay often  developed through a lack of reasonable adjustments, with employees reporting feelings of being disbelieved by their employer, which then impacted their ability to carry out their work. In some cases, it also came about by employers expressing concern about an employee’s health and making assumptions about their capabilities, which could lead to role downgrades, pressure on employees to seek medical retirement, and a reduction in working hours. 

Some disabled people felt that the process to seek redress was particularly challenging because of their disability as they needed reasonable adjustments to navigate internal and legal processes. Some felt pressure to sign non-disclosure agreements in exchange for financial settlements, for example to support the cost of the home adaptations they require for their disability.

Contract type also factored into employees’ or workers’ ability to seek redress, with outsourced workers reporting feeling like they had fewer rights or limited ability to challenge discriminatory practices compared to permanent workers. They expressed a heightened sense of insecurity and fear of contract termination, contributing to an overall feeling of job instability. 

4. Insights from employers

This research was conducted in parallel with research into combined discrimination. Employers and service providers’ experiences of having a pay claim or a combined discrimination claim would be fairly similar, so both types of claims were discussed in the same interview. As a result, many of the overarching findings presented here have also been included in the combined discrimination report.

Researchers spoke with interviewees covering a variety of roles within an organisation including managers, HR professionals, and in-house legal support. 

Type of role	Count
HR professional	8
Team manager	3
Legal support (mainly in-house, with some third-party speaking on the perspective of a specific respondent)	4

4.1 Experience of having a claim made against them 

4.1.1 Trends in the nature of discrimination claims brought forward

Employers noted 2 broad trends in the nature of discrimination claims brought against them. Firstly, they reflected that claims were usually related to discrimination more broadly rather than pay concerns. Secondly, they noted that discrimination claims were increasing, and were becoming more complex.

Understanding of pay discrimination varied across the interviewees, likely shaped by their role within their organisation and involvement with claims made against the organisation. For example, one manager felt that pay was largely determined by an employee’s ability to negotiate rather than systemic factors [073]. However, most employers felt that the claims made were usually related to discrimination more broadly rather than pay concerns specifically [052, 067, 094, 095, 101, 105]. This could be due to employers’ limited awareness and understanding of pay discrimination. 

A legal professional who was interviewed reflected that HR within organisations did not necessarily have the awareness to identify and rectify pay discrimination when it was happening: 

“Even when I’m dealing with reasonable employers, who would hate for that to be the case, they’ve just not been able to see it.” [084]

They referenced more nuanced instances of potential pay discrimination, such as where zero-hour contract workers have the same hourly rate but may not be given the same shifts, as examples of where employers may have limited awareness [084]. 

Secondly, employers anecdotally reflected on a rise in the number of cases and increasing complexity of these cases, which were more likely to mention several types of discrimination and several protected characteristics, or to bring more witnesses: 

“The opportunity cost of not being at work and the dollar sign attached to a case means more people make claims” [095] 

Employers reflected on how they felt there was a growing ‘claims culture’ [049, 057, 094, 095]:

“I don’t know whether we’ve seen a cultural change or an increasing claims culture, where we’ll see more.” [049] 

“We’re becoming a litigation environment, like the US” [095] 

This was further highlighted by one employer who perceived a rise in the number of race discrimination cases raised following one successful claim of race discrimination brought against the company [097]. They reflected that the successful claim created a perception from other claimants that the organisation was “racially discriminatory” and therefore must have discriminated against them. They also mentioned the high-profile nature of the case and the fact that the large award was made public as potential factors. This “piggy-backing” phenomenon was also alluded to by a lawyer, who mentioned an uptick in different claims against an employer involved in an ongoing, high-profile equal pay claim [084].^{[footnote 2]}

Employers also felt that employees were adding more types of discrimination and protected characteristics to their claims to increase their chances of success [049, 052, 057, 095, 097]: 

“It almost feels at the moment, with every type of complaint, if the employee has any protected characteristic, that is used as the explanation as to why they have been subjected to some sort of mistreatment and they try to link that in” [095] 

Both employers and support organisations hypothesised that claimants would often add whistleblowing^{[footnote 3]} to their claims despite it having no relevance to their experience, hypothesising that this was due to limited understanding of whistleblowing and a desire to bolster claims.

4.1.1.1 Findings specific to race discrimination

There were limited insights from employers on race discrimination claims in general, and particularly regarding the nature of claims. One legal representative working with an employer in an equal pay claim (in the context of sex discrimination) reflected on how elements of race fed into that claim – many of the hourly paid work and zero-hour contracts in the warehouse were done by employees from ethnic minority backgrounds [084], emphasising the importance of considering intersectionality of multiple protected characteristics in pay discrimination cases. 

4.1.1.2 Findings specific to disability discrimination

Employers perceived a rise in cases about neurodiversity [052, 095, 097, 106] and non-visible disabilities that were often not disclosed until later down the line. Some reflected that this increase was likely due to greater awareness of these disabilities [097]. They reflected on a lack of clarity about how much was within the employers’ responsibility to proactively identify and support needs: 

“We don’t have the right to know, but they’ll let us know when they think we should know.” [097] 

Some employers believed that employees would only disclose disabilities in a tactical way when it benefited them, for example bringing it as additional context when discussing poorer performance [097], or to add to a broader claim of discrimination [095]. They also reflected that this late disclosure made it harder to provide adjustments needed by these employees [095]. 

One employment lawyer for a respondent reflected on how reasonable adjustments could indirectly impact pay of employees, which could potentially bring an element of disability pay discrimination. For example, in the organisation they represented, some people on reasonably adjusted stations only worked during the day whereas employees carrying out tasks requiring more manual labour could take more financially beneficial shifts [084]. 

4.1.2 The process of responding to claims

Across employers, the process of responding to claims tended to include the following steps: 

• navigating the internal grievance process and potential appeal
• receiving the employee’s employment tribunal form (ET1)
• investigation and preparation of the employer’s employment tribunal form (ET3)
• submission of ET3 response
• preliminary hearing
• tribunal review

While employers outlined these steps, most employers emphasised the desire to not have to go through the legal process, largely due to the challenges identified below. Employers raised how they often sought to rectify pay issues immediately [067, 084] or settle issues before going to tribunal (either via settlement or informal resolution) [049, 052, 067, 086, 095, 094, 101, 103, 105, 106]. Most employers were keen to settle due to the reputational risk to the organisation, associated costs, and the impact of the entire process on both parties [103, 106]: 

“I think there was a myth out there that you’re signing [a settlement] to silence [the employee]. But actually it’s the rounded benefit that [if] you’re putting somebody through this process then all trust and relationships are broken down.” [103] 

Many employers discussed conducting assessments of the risks and likelihood of success of claims to determine their next steps [049, 086, 095, 103, 106]:

“Sometimes it is just easier and more cost effective to settle.” [095] 

“It’s probably more cost effective for them to pay somebody off or exit them from the business with a bit of a package than address it all internally.” [103] 

Another interviewee reflected that they were encouraged to settle based on the “market rumour” that cases can take over a decade to complete, based on the ongoing supermarket cases [106]. 

However, some said that they would contest any case [052, 086] to protect their reputation, or due to concerns about the long-term financial impacts of setting a precedent [097]. These financial impacts could include the potential cost of compensation or settlement for claimants: 

“We don’t want to be in a position where our employees think if they call Acas they get some money because we’re just handing out cheques left, right and centre which we can’t afford to do.” [097]

4.1.3 Challenges for employers in the current process of responding to claims

 

The internal grievance process was highlighted as problematic by both employees and employers. Employers felt internal processes for investigations and appeals were resource-intensive and time-consuming. They reported frustration with duplication in steps between internal and external processes [049, 095, 101, 103, 106]: “It takes an exorbitant amount of time, effort and money to go through the internal process” [095]. One interview noted that this was particularly costly due to the demands placed on leadership’s time [103, 106]. 

Like employees, employers reported high costs to responding to claims [049, 067], exacerbated by the length of time it takes for claims to go through the legal process [097]. Some employers reported they had court cases booked in for 2027 [052, 106] or that they had been waiting over 2 years for a court date: 

“And that’s going to cost us £4,000 in representation. […] By the time he’s prepared for it and then gone for half a day [to a preliminary hearing], that’s what our legal bill is just for that – we haven’t even got to the claim.” [097]. 

Employers were particularly frustrated with the costs of the process due to the low probability of recovering any costs [049, 086, 095, 097]: 

“It feels very frustrating to have to spend 60 grand to go through that process over the next 2 years when I genuinely believe there is no case to answer.” [049] 

“Our legal bills will be more than they were ever going to recover” [097]

Employers highlighted challenges responding to employment tribunal claims due to the quality of information provided by claimants. They struggled to interpret the ET1 forms submitted, which were felt to be either too vague, or to contain too much irrelevant detail [045, 049, 095, 097]: 

“We don’t really know the nature of it because the form completed was so poor” [049]

“We spend a lot of time trying to guess what they are trying to complain about” [095] 

Employers felt that the quality of the ET1 forms submitted was a result of claimants’ limited understanding of the legal system. They also felt that employees had inaccurate expectations of the tribunal service and what it can do [049, 052]: 

“They desperately lack the knowledge in relation to how a claim is calculated and awarded and the specific guidance” [052] 

One employer gave an example of a claimant asking for unrealistic levels of compensation, up to £5.5 million [097]. This was made worse by the number of people taking a case unrepresented [049, 095, 097]: 

“There’s a very big misconception among claimants that they can do it and they put themselves through that process without knowing what that entails” [095] 

“Because it’s free to go to the tribunal, they’re just like, well, I’ll just do it and the judge will help me. But it’s not quite the judge’s role” [097] 

Like with employees, employers observed an increasing number of individuals using AI to assist in completing their claims. [049, 095, 097]. 

Employers voiced frustrations about the logistics in the legal process, such as administrative challenges and engagement with the court [052, 097]: 

“If we’ve got questions in relation to what’s raised, we will be chasing the court. And it just goes into a void and we do not get responses for months and months” [052]. 

Cancellations of court dates due to judge availability and overbooking were also mentioned [052]. Interviewees reflected on the mandatory early conciliation process, saying this was not always helpful in reaching a solution other than going to employment tribunal [049, 052, 095]: 

“It feels a bit of a tick box exercise” and “obviously they can’t take a view, they can’t have their say, they don’t know who’s right or wrong. So all they can really be is the go between.” [049] 

Contract type: While most employers had not experienced responding to pay discrimination claims or complaints brought by outsourced workers, they reflected on the complexities of responsibility for outsourced workers more broadly. According to one interviewee that worked for a labour provider, (a business which employs workers and supplies them to other businesses) [105], an additional challenge to resolving employees’ complaints was that the labour provider and the client businesses had joint responsibility for the employees placed with the client. He reported that labour providers could feel less sighted on what happened in the workplace, and in cases of broader discrimination, could conduct independent investigations: 

“We’re the neutral party really” [105]. 

The broader responsibility of businesses towards outsourced workers was also raised by other employers, who discussed how contractors were not covered by employers’ policies to the same extent [073, 103]: 

“The contractors that we hired directly to work for us have sight and use of those HR policies because I know people that have used them, I would say probably they don’t get the same service” [073] 

Regarding pay specifically, employers had different views on transparency of pay for contracted staff. One employer reported good transparency for agency staff, with clarity and reporting on pay per hour [106]. However, another HR manager highlighted the complexity of the situation, noting that they do not always have visibility into what an outsourced worker earns when they are working through an agency: 

“I don’t always know what that person’s taking home because they’re through an agency. If you ask the question they tell you, but they’re not required to give you that breakdown.” [103] 

Employers also discussed contractors sometimes being paid more than substantive staff, for example to account for limited job security and lack of employee benefits such as pensions [073, 103].

One employer had a direct experience of a discrimination claim, which included pay elements, brought against them by outsourced workers.

Interview 096: Case study of alleged discrimination against outsourced workers

A solicitor working in the higher education sector recounted how a previous employer faced a claim of indirect racial discrimination in relation to the outsourcing of its security services. The interviewee reported how the complaint, which was raised by a union and brought to tribunal, argued that the outsourcing arrangement adversely affected a predominantly Black workforce and created a discriminatory impact compared to directly employed university staff.

According to the interviewee, the central argument of the claim was that the outsourced security personnel received less favourable employment terms compared to their directly employed counterparts, including lower pay. The union contended that these discrepancies resulted in indirect pay discrimination on the basis of race, as the outsourced workers were primarily of Black ethnic backgrounds.

To respond to the allegation, the interviewee described how their team undertook data analysis that looked at employment data by role, employment type, and ethnic background, looking at a broad range of staff (including teaching staff, and maintenance and gardening personnel). They reported that the data revealed that just over 51% of the outsourced workforce identified as white, which they felt demonstrated that the outsourcing of workers did not lead to indirect racial discrimination of Black outsourced workers. They described how based on this analysis the institution successfully defended against the claim at the initial tribunal stage. 

What does this interview show? This interview demonstrates the complexities that can be introduced by pay differentials between outsourced and permanently employed staff in fissured workplaces, with regards to risk of pay discrimination, as well as the complexities in evidencing indirect discrimination claims when worker groups are not homogeneous.

4.1.4 Insights around the current equal pay regime

Employers discussed pressures of market forces impacting pay for certain roles, especially in areas with a requirement for technical skills and expertise such as in finance and construction [067, 073, 084, 086, 095, 097, 105, 106]: 

“Sometimes we do need a specialist and if we’re wanting someone with certain skills, obviously we might need to pay more so we can add a market supplement” [097]

In this context, employers voiced concerns about the impact of equal pay legislation on the wider economy, as needing to respond to market forces to recruit for one type of role may create risks of exposure to equal pay claims: 

“If an employer wants to be competitive in the market and pays the same rate as a competitor on one side of the business, they’re creating a risk of some exposure somewhere else” [084]. 

One employer suggested that businesses may potentially not want to set up in the UK as a result [095]. This was echoed by a representative of a support organisation considering how:

“In previous cases…you’ve had historic liabilities which could end up sort of finishing off employers.” [091]

4.1.5 Impact on employers and relationships

Like employees, employers reported a loss of trust after a claim was made, especially if employees decided to stay at an organisation: 

“The trust is affected too, because it’s not just as simple as raising a concern and addressing it” [095] 

Employers reported that managers experienced significant stress when employees decided to remain with the organisation [097]: 

“But we do have a couple at the moment where they’re still employed and actually the managers find that really, really difficult” [097] 

They described how this situation could be problematic when it became necessary to discipline employees or put them on performance management programmes. Most employers reported that employees who had raised a claim tended to leave the organisation, indicating the relationship has broken down to a point of no return, especially if people had gone down formal routes [049, 084, 094, 103]: 

“I’ve never seen people successfully claim and stay in a job” [103]

Employers also reported additional stress for those who worked alongside the employee who had sought redress [067, 095, 106], particularly in picking up additional work when there is limited capacity. A few employers reflected on the impacts on those involved in claims such as witnesses and named respondents, noticing a recent increase in the amount of claims that name specific individuals [052, 095, 097]. One employer discussed an instance in which 5 individuals were named: 

“They’re so scared and obviously we say don’t worry, we will cover you, but it’s scary” [095] – with one manager resigning as a result [095] 

Another outlined the stress caused, including:

“We’ve had people ask if they’re going to have to sell the house and all sorts.” [097] 

This had a knock-on impact on people not wanting to be managers: 

“We can train them. But who wants to manage people if you are going to be subjected to claims in the future? [095] 

4.2 Mitigations against future claims 

During the interviews employers highlighted 3 ways they could mitigate against future claims: transparent pay structures and reporting, strong policies and processes to prevent and address discrimination, and training.

4.2.1 Pay structures and reporting

Employers identified transparency as one of the primary ways to prevent pay discrimination or pay disparities. This can be achieved through pay structures that are visible across the organisation. Some employers described an intention to be transparent in their pay structures [049, 095, 097], but acknowledged challenges in achieving this, particularly as some elements of pay such as performance-related pay (bonuses) and the pay packages for leadership remained confidential [101, 103]. One interviewee reflected that transparency was easier to achieve in roles where pay was largely based on commission, referencing finance or technology, but there were other elements of pay that could cause disparities such as pension contributions and share options [106].

Some felt that there was more room for negotiation in the private sector compared to the public sector [094, 097, 105]: 

“So it’s not like private practice where you get your payback and then you negotiate and say you’re going to leave and you get a pay rise and things like this and there’s none of that” [097] 

Some felt that there was more accountability in the public sector [103]. 

One employer in construction described the role of negotiation in salaries, recognising that this may put some groups at a disadvantage [073]. An additional challenge identified was in owner-led or founder-led organisations where there can be less objectivity and transparency around decisions [067, 103, 106]: 

“The nature of founders is that they’re very successful, very driven, very determined to do things their way, which makes them successful, but then does cause problems in getting that fairness and objectivity” [106]

Employers said that gender pay gap reporting, which is mandatory for organisations with over 250 employees, was another important way to achieve transparency and understand pay disparities, noting that this raised awareness and encouraged conversation [106]. However, one employer highlighted a challenge in achieving accurate figures as more people were choosing not to disclose their protected characteristics: 

“It becomes an issue in trying to present the true picture as challenges around disclosure make it difficult to keep the information as up to date as possible” [095] 

One interviewee also reflected that there was a lack of accountability for companies under the 250 employee threshold [106].

Other good practices identified by interviewees included benchmarking against industry standards on a regular basis [067, 095] and regular reviews of pay [106]: 

“We have a tight process but we also have checks and balances throughout the year, with evidence to support our decision making” [095] 

Some employers also discussed positive practices such as performance reviews, introducing roundtables or grading panels to provide checks to any unconscious bias and to normalise grades in the context of pay evaluations. [094, 097] The use of competency based frameworks to reduce risk of unconscious bias or discrimination was also raised [103]. 

4.2.1.1 Findings specific to race discrimination

Some employers in large organisations mentioned that they were considering introducing ethnicity pay gap reporting in addition to required gender pay gap reporting. [095, 067]. Some employers felt that ethnicity pay gap reporting would likely be a product of local demographics [095,106]: 

“The demographics of that area don’t attract significant ethnicities […]. So we have to be very careful and thoughtful” [095] 

4.2.1.1 Findings specific to disability discrimination

While employers noted an increase in disability discrimination claims, particularly related to neurodiversity and non-visible disabilities, they generally had not considered introducing disability pay gap reporting.

4.2.2 Equality, diversity and inclusion policies and processes for making a complaint

Most employers outlined extensive equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies and processes available to employees for raising concerns [052, 095, 094]. However one manager noted they were aware of the policy, but they had not read it themselves, and reflected on issues in the usage and understanding of policies: 

They’re very much tick box exercises that everyone just gets through as quickly as possible to say, yes, I’ve ticked all the boxes” [073]

Others noted that policies must be supplemented by further actions to prevent discrimination [052, 103]: policies in place are “trying to tick a box from a legal perspective” [103]. 

The perception that policies may be performative was exacerbated when there were no tangible consequences for those involved in discriminatory behaviour in breach of policies: 

“And I know he’s had several complaints made against him and nothing seems to have happened. So that makes me think that our systems aren’t as robust as they need to be.” [073] 

Some reflected on the ‘reactive’ nature of policies and how both employees and employers could benefit from a more proactive approach: 

“Would I say we were being proactive? Probably not as much as we could have done” [106]

Others discussed the need for policy to be championed by leadership to have the most meaningful impact [073, 106].

Employers reported taking a continuous improvement approach to their policies, with some reviewing them on an annual basis. Policies were reported to be updated and iterated to reflect changes in legislation and in response to learnings from claims when they were made [049, 067, 094, 097]. One employer described that they mandated unconscious bias training, particularly for those involved in recruitment [097], following a successful claim of race discrimination made against them. However, one interviewee noted a challenge in implementing effective policies and procedures, when the available public guidance on legislation was felt to be “wooly” and: 

“There’s no one to tell us if we’re right and wrong until you get to a judge.” [097] 

Other activities to ensure policy is as effective as possible included iterating policy based on employee engagement surveys as an indicator for any concerns [095, 106], and bringing in external legal support to navigate particularly tricky areas, for example in factoring in cultural differences while dealing with staff absences: 

“But we do take guidance because sometimes it can be a very dicey situation where we don’t know whether it fits in with the policy or not, so we take legal guidance” [094].

An area highlighted as particularly challenging was in start ups and scale ups in which there is “less process and less maturity in business practices”: 

“it can be a bit sloppy those first few years when they’re starting up because there’s a lot of change in management.” [103]

“this is when you end up retrofitting things because you are flying by the seat of your pants” [106]

Contract type: Some interviewees noted that challenging discriminatory treatment may be more difficult for contractors, as their claims and concerns were often taken less seriously, and relevant internal policies may not be applied: “[contractors] have then made a complaint and maybe it hasn’t gone any further because they aren’t part of the organisation, so it feels like it doesn’t matter, they’re not an employee.” [073]. One employer acknowledged that in cases of discrimination, the contractor was likely to lose the contract: “they are at risk of them going right, we’ll get rid of him as he’s raised this issue against them.” [073]. 

These challenges also applied to zero-hour contracts and those in insecure employment [051, 084]. These sentiments were echoed by a labour provider [105] who described the ‘grey area’ of when and how policies applied to agency or temporary staff. They described that the labour providers paid wages and were therefore responsible, but they would hope that client businesses were also enforcing their own internal policies to protect against discrimination. 

However, it should be noted that this ‘grey area’ applies to broader non-pay discrimination, as outsourced workers who are contracted to provide work to another business cannot bring a discrimination claim against that business in relation to their pay being lower than that of the business’s direct employees.

4.2.3 Training

 

Interviewees across the sample had mixed experiences and opinions on training. Some recognised training as critical for preventing future claims, especially for managerial practices, unconscious bias and diversity and inclusion [094, 097, 106]: 

“Sometimes people are promoted without any understanding of what their legal responsibilities were… people don’t understand that as a manager, if they do the wrong thing, they could cause the company liability” and “what their role is vs HR is”[106] 

However, others felt that their training was a ‘tick-box’ exercise [073, 101]: 

“I don’t rate them because they’re very much tick box exercises that everyone just gets through as quickly as possible to say, yes, I’ve ticked all the boxes, blah, blah, blah” [073] 

“We do that for 2 hours and then we don’t touch it for 2 years” [101] 

This was further demonstrated by an employer who was told to follow policy without understanding its rationale: 

“If someone is off sick and we are doing the return to work interviews, I have to ask them if it’s menopause related but I don’t know why I ask that […] I’d like training on that” [101] 

While the content of training, including unconscious bias training, was felt to be needed, interviewees reported that it was often not very engaging and that if it was not mandated, people tended not to do it: 

“It’s just not high on their agenda to do”. [097] 

Another identified senior leadership as a barrier to implementing training: 

“I could not get any kind of unconscious bias training or anything in place at all. They just absolutely refused, the senior leadership just thought it was a complete waste of time.” [106]

Employers and support organisations reflected on public sector organisations, particularly in healthcare, being organisations where pay discrimination and broader discrimination was often seen [006, 022, 094]. One employer believed that this was due to less investment in training managers in unconscious bias and cultural diversity, compared to the private sector: 

“We wouldn’t get many complaints like you see in public sector enterprises” because “they [the public sector] don’t invest in training their managers” [094] 

4.3 Attitudes to enforcement and redress

Employers provided limited insight on enforcement and redress outside the challenges in the current process. However, there was acknowledgement that businesses were ultimately motivated by profit, with one employer reflecting that there must be mechanisms to hold them to account and ensure they are “doing the right thing, even when no-one is looking” [101].

4.4 Conclusions

Employers expressed mixed levels of understanding and engagement with pay discrimination claims. They often viewed them as complex, resource-intensive, and increasingly frequent, due to a growing awareness among employees and a perceived rising claims culture. Training and policies, while in place, were sometimes seen as performative and not engaged with deeply.

While many organisations were taking steps to improve transparency, improve policies, and offer training to mitigate risk, challenges remained. These included the effectiveness of grievance and legal processes, which were described as extremely long and costly. This often meant that employers preferred settlements over tribunal proceedings. 

Specific challenges were highlighted concerning a rise in claims related to neurodiversity and non-visible disabilities. Employers noted that these were not always disclosed upfront, which made it more difficult to provide all needed adjustments. 

A labour provider and several employers reflected on the additional challenge for outsourced workers. While labour providers are responsible for workers, businesses have some responsibility towards workers embedded in their organisations, and at times may have limited visibility of their pay (noting however that a worker cannot currently bring a pay discrimination claim against the business they are contracted to provide work to).

Employers voiced concerns about the impact of equal pay legislation on the wider economy. Concerns included the risk of group equal pay claims being brought against businesses who may need to pay one workforce more than another to respond to market rates.

5. Insights from support services and organisations

Individuals from support organisations involved in this research provided support to employees:

• who have experienced discrimination, including (but not exclusively) pay discrimination, to help them understand possible next steps – for example helpline advisors and organisations working with specific population cohorts who are most at risk

• who have decided to take a claim further, for example conciliators, union representatives, solicitors

• during legal proceedings, for example legal representatives and independent experts to provide insight on current equal pay processes 

Type of role	Count
Conciliation and workplace resolution services	3
Support helpline advisor	2
Law Centre advisor	2
Other legal charity support role	4
Independent Expert	4
Trade union officer	1
Lawyer	1

5.1 The nature of cases seen by support organisations

Echoing the experiences of employers, support organisations reflected that pay discrimination made up a small proportion of cases seen, and was often wrapped into wider concerns of discrimination and ill-treatment in the workplace [004, 007, 010, 015, 022, 035, 091, 093, 097]: 

“It’s the last issue that’s raised. Pay becomes an issue when everything else is so bad” 

“it’s not talked about at all until everything else becomes so hideous that it becomes an issue” [022] 

While pay discrimination cases made up a small proportion, support organisations flagged that current affairs (such as the current economic landscape) were impacting cases coming through [006, 019, 022, 051, 093]: 

“Of course, in a cost of living crisis, pay takes on rather more importance” [022] 

Some interviewees reflected that discrimination impacting pay was often seen in the form of limited opportunities to progress, reflecting findings from interviews with employees. Support organisations did not think this was because pay discrimination was uncommon. They suggested instead that it was likely harder to identify due to a lack of transparency [006, 010, 021, 022, 084]:  

It’s just that people don’t realise they can [claim] and part of that is not knowing the law and part of it is not knowing what people are paid” [021] 

Support organisations echoed the feelings of employers that cases were becoming increasingly complex, and that elements which were less relevant were being added to claims [003, 035, 037]: 

“I think probably people do put [pay discrimination in an employment tribunal claim form] on because once somebody fills in an employment tribunal form, they’ll stick everything on that they can possibly think of.” [037]

Interviewees were asked about particular ‘problem areas’, or sectors and business types where discrimination issues were more common. Sectors that were mentioned by multiple interviewees included:

Sector	Count
Health and social care, particularly due to overseas recruitment	7
Sectors where there is a large proportion of work that is outsourced or done by contractors or agency staff (examples given included construction and call-centres)	2
Sectors with high levels of insecure employment (examples given included food delivery, the gig economy, security, hospitality, cleaners, or pre-schools and nurseries)	6

Business characteristics that were mentioned by multiple interviewees included:

Business type	Count
Small organisations that don’t have the infrastructure or resource for training and no dedicated HR team or comprehensive policies and procedures	5
Family led or owner led businesses where decisions are often made on personal preference	2

Contract type: Support organisations also explicitly raised how agency workers were more vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination due to “less secure employment environments” [007]. One interviewee suggested that individuals in outsourced jobs, such as cleaners, may perceive they are being treated unfavourably – particularly in relation to overtime pay or specific shifts –  but may struggle to articulate this as discriminatory treatment or not have sufficient information to substantiate their case: 

“They’re in very vulnerable positions, and there’s no way they’re going to have access to stuff […] They just don’t have the overview of anything more in depth” [006] 

One interviewee reflected on the ‘grey area’ when outsourced workers have a long term contract with an employer, where it feels unclear whether the labour provider or the employer is responsible for preventing and addressing discrimination. [007]

One support organisation also reflected on how increasing protections for employees from day one, by providing employees with protections and entitlements the moment they start a job rather than needing them to accrue sufficient service, may push employers to recruit outsourced workers instead. This could expose employees to more vulnerability: 

“What’s an alternative to employing people? Are you going to force it and use agencies, either direct agency staff or a third party.” [007]

5.1.1 Findings specific to race discrimination

Some support organisations reflected that race pay discrimination cases were less common [035, 051], and were not increasing at the same pace as disability discrimination [051]: 

“Race [discrimination] is quite hard to spot, a true race claim is really hard to spot” [035] 

One interviewee suggested that this might be because there might be limited evidence to link the lower pay to an individual’s race, while also recognising that race claims were commonly tied in with immigration status issues, providing additional complexity [035].

5.1.2 Findings specific to disability discrimination

Support organisations reported that they were seeing more disability cases [003, 017], with a rise in cases involving neurodiversity and mental health [006, 017, 051]. They reflected that this was likely due to increasing societal awareness of these needs, and employees feeling more able to ask for reasonable adjustments. While awareness of disabilities and neurodiversity is felt to have increased, support organisations echoed the sentiments of employees that employers lacked understanding of reasonable adjustments [010]: 

“somebody hasn’t understood the barriers they face, understood what needs to be done to help them, or doesn’t think it’s worth doing or it’s too expensive or whatever, but it’s not usually a vicious thing” [010] 

This was seen when reversing flexible working and work from home policies, for example [017]. The ability and willingness of employers to implement reasonable adjustments could have knock-on consequences for an employee’s progression, particularly in professional services where pay is linked to billing a certain number of hours and performance: 

“If they haven’t been given reasonable adjustments, their billing is going to stop them from progressing and from getting commission” [035]

5.2 Insights on barriers to seeking legal redress

5.2.1 Additional insights raised by support organisations

Support organisations corroborated many insights highlighted by employees and employers, particularly around the emotional burden of navigating the current process and how the costs involved acted as a barrier. They also identified other challenges based on their experiences of supporting employees at different stages in the process. 

A common challenge raised was the public’s limited understanding of their rights under the Equality Act 2010 and the routes to seeking redress. Support organisations felt that there was a lack of awareness that pay discrimination could be broader than salary, and include performance-related pay, benefits, pensions and discretionary pay [004, 021, 022]. Support organisations also echoed that employees did not know how to match up experiences of wrongdoing with legal definitions or tests [004, 003, 007, 017, 035, 051, 093] or how to clearly communicate the relationship between their treatment and a protected characteristic: 

“I would say predominantly earlier on in the journey, a lack of understanding is probably a big theme” and “Not knowing so again that theme of knowledge, how do I deal with this? How do I prove this? How can I evidence that for an employment tribunal?” [051] 

Limited understanding meant that employees often had unrealistic expectations of what the tribunal service could do for them [006, 035, 084]. Support organisations who are early touch points for employees reported spending a lot of time advising on the law [015]. They reported spending an increasing amount of time managing expectations of what support organisations and the tribunal service could and could not do [006, 051]: 

“Me and others in my team are trying to manage expectations immediately, we can’t say whether we think anybody has a strong or legitimate claim. We can only advise what the process is going to be” [051]

Support organisations also provided an additional insight into how long the process took, saying that this was often caused by the employer slowing it down [003, 006, 017, 019, 020, 021, 035, 082]: 

“An employer would do everything they can to slow the process down. And it usually takes them 2 years to get heard at least” [035] 

This was not helped by the extensive tribunal backlog. 

During this time, they reported that the experience of claimants could be made worse by the actions of the employer [017, 022, 035, 051], for example by not wanting to engage in conciliation, denying the allegations, and taking a strong defensive stance. This was compounded by the limited capacity of existing support organisations, meaning employees were often sign-posted to other organisations: 

“Some of them will go to 5 or 6 different people, bless them, they’ll send emails out to everybody. They’ll be sending out referrals left, right and centre and don’t get any representation at all.” [093] 

Support organisations voiced frustrations around the ability of the tribunals to achieve meaningful change for employees who have made it through the difficult legal process and been successful, due to limited mechanisms to enforce the requirements. One interviewee estimated “it’s something like half of all employment Tribunal claims go unenforced.” [093], with employers not taking the steps they are required to after a successful claim. 

It was suggested that one reason for this could be due to businesses going insolvent at the end of the process [051, 082, 093], meaning there is no remedy or change despite the claimant winning their case [015].

5.2.2.1 Findings specific to race discrimination

Some support organisations highlighted immigration status and visa concerns [006, 015, 017, 035, 051, 082, 093] as a further barrier, both in terms of being an additional basis for unfavourable treatment (for example, pay deductions or not providing sufficient shifts) and as an additional barrier to seeking redress. Particular barriers for recent migrants included language barriers, lack of awareness of their rights and the legal process in the UK, and fear of losing visas and sponsorships. This was reported to be prominent in industries like health and care [006, 051] and in areas of low paid work such as construction and nurseries [051]. While this often overlaps with race, immigration status is not in itself a protected characteristic, which can make seeking legal redress more challenging [082].

Navigating an already complex legal system was found to be more challenging for those with English as a second language, entailing translation of documents and evidence, and interpretation in courts [015, 082, 093]. It was also noted that there was a requirement for additional support for people with learning disabilities or other accessibility needs to ensure they could navigate the system [093]. 

The challenge of high costs of legal representation was reported to be likely to affect employees with lower socioeconomic status more [004, 010, 015, 017, 022, 035, 050, 084] by causing further financial strain or resulting in employees having to navigate the system representing themselves. 

5.2.3 Challenges in the existing sex discrimination equal pay process

Support organisations were asked to reflect on the equal pay process, which is currently limited to discrimination regarding pay between men and women. They highlighted a number of specific challenges. 

Interviewees reflected that equal pay cases took significantly longer than other discrimination cases. They reported that the time required to go through a case had increased in recent years, with some of the largest cases taking decades to complete [003, 006, 019, 020, 021, 022, 037, 084, 086, 091]: 

“So women who put in their case in 2008 will be lucky to have got a result by 2028.” [037] 

One interviewee who was providing legal representation to an employer in an ongoing equal pay case outlined how they had been working on this case for 6 years and still had not developed and agreed job descriptions [084]. 

Delays were attributed to the actions of legal representation, with interviewees noting a rise in “no win no fee” lawyers. The development of job descriptions was raised as a particular mechanism to slow the process down [019, 020, 021, 086]. Independent Experts, whose role is to assess job comparability in equal pay claims through job evaluations, noted that these could be hundreds of pages long [019]:

“The job descriptions are easily 300 pages long and the solicitors continually argue about whether where the full stops go.”

“Sometimes the lawyers are being purposefully obstructive and job descriptions provide a lot of information that is potentially unnecessary” [037] 

Interviewees described the process as being particularly attritional and adversarial, partially as a result of the attitudes of employers’ lawyers, noting the toll this could take on claimants. Support organisations also reflected on the complexity of this legislation [007, 010, 015, 019, 022, 084, 086, 091, 093]: 

“Equal pay and discrimination law is very complex and it’s very difficult for somebody who’s an employee to understand” 

“Even the preliminary hearing agendas, the documents that individuals are sent to complete and fill out the legal tests are really complicated so people are disincentivised to engage in the process” [084] 

“If it’s a barrier for me with 22 years experience… it’s almost impossible to work out where you are going and what you should do” [007] 

The complexity also raised challenges for judges: 

“A lot will depend on the judge who’s taking the tribunal, how much experience they have of assessing jobs. And it’s a very different type of discrimination, of looking at equal pay [compared to] looking at discrimination.” [037] 

“I did some research years ago, looking at how many cases all the judges have had and there were very few [who had] worked on more than one case” [021] 

Based on these challenges identified in the equal pay process, it was understood by interviewees that most of the cases going down the equal pay route were collective cases, handled by a small number of specialist lawyers [003, 004, 006, 010, 017, 020, 021, 022, 051, 091, 093], with one interviewee noting: 

“I think most trade unions have almost given up in terms of the work that we do supporting in individuals through equal pay cases” [022] 

5.2.4 Reflections on the potential to expand equal pay to include race and disability

Support organisations were also asked about the challenges and opportunities of expanding equal pay to cover race and disability.  

Some interviewees expressed reservations around expanding equal pay to race and disability in the existing legislative process as this would be adding complexity to an already complex system [003, 004, 022, 086, 091, 093]. They felt there were challenges in the existing process that would need to be addressed: 

“Equal pay has become so complicated, so lawyered up. So requiring highly complex, highly experienced, highly paid lawyers, that it is not a model you would want to emulate” [093] 

Others felt that equal pay was outdated legislation that should not be applied to a modern and current problem [003, 086]: 

“This has created a strange division for the protected characteristic of sex and a different route for sex discrimination.” [086] 

For cases referencing disability specifically, this would often rely on self-reporting of impairments, which would bring additional complexity [091]. Careful consideration would also need to be given to the implications of reasonable adjustments within job evaluations [020].

One interviewee worried about long-term adverse consequences for businesses, with equal pay potentially leading to the dissolution of high-diversity, low paid sectors. For example, a claim for equal pay on the basis of race might be brought against big employers of care workers who are often from overseas. [091]

However, one interviewee identified benefits to expanding equal pay to include race and disability, suggesting that a single model for the legal tests across different protected characteristics could make the system more straightforward [084]. They felt the potential expansion of the legislation presented an opportunity to make the most of the benefits of the equal pay system. For example, in equal pay cases, if a claim is not filed within the 6-month employment tribunal deadline, it can be pursued in the civil courts within 6 years of the termination of employment. This allows for compensation to be claimed for up to 6 years of underpayment. Claimants would therefore be able to go back to events within a 6 year window, which could hold employers to account for a longer period of time [084]. 

It was noted that there would be limited change to the job evaluation process if race and disability were to be introduced [019, 020, 021, 037]. However, interviewees felt if equal pay were to be expanded, there would need to be a series of practical considerations, which should include having the data to identify cases and the systems required to track them [084]. It was noted that this may be harder for smaller businesses who may not have the monitoring infrastructure. Interviewees also felt that people would need to be supported to come forward, to overcome the barriers discussed previously: 

“There would need to be guidance, awareness and a lot of planning” [084]

A number of interviewees felt that, while changes to legislation could have a positive impact, the largest impact would come from better supporting employees through the current process and addressing the barriers outlined [007, 010, 022, 086, 093]: 

“I don’t think the current regime is ineffective in terms of the legislation, it is more that the support is ineffective” [086] 

“[The challenges are] extremely complex and multidimensional. It’s not going to be resolved by a magic wand and a piece of legislation which automatically puts things right.” [022]

5.3 Conclusions

Support organisations reported that while pay discrimination was often underreported or embedded within broader concerns, this did not mean pay discrimination was not happening, but that it might be harder to identify due to the lack of transparency around pay. They were seeing an increase in cases related to disability, with a rise in cases involving neurodiversity and mental health, likely due to increased societal awareness of these impairments.

They highlighted widespread barriers to seeking redress for people experiencing discrimination, including lack of legal knowledge, emotional and financial strain, and systemic delays in the tribunal process. Particular challenges were faced by those with insecure immigration status and with English as a second language.

They also reflected on how, even after successfully navigating the grievance and legal process, there was no guarantee of meaningful change as requirements for employers often go unenforced. 

Support organisations called out outsourced workers as being more vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination, and as having more difficulty in identifying this discrimination as a result of having a less complete picture of other employees’ pay. They reflected on the grey area when outsourced workers have a long term contract with an employer, where it feels unclear whether the labour provider or the employer is responsible for preventing and addressing discrimination.

Support organisations expressed mixed views on expanding equal pay legislation to cover race and disability, as this would be adding complexity to an already complex system, and possibly lengthening the process for those employees. One individual worried about long-term adverse consequences, with equal pay potentially leading to the dissolution of high-diversity, low paid sectors. They agreed that more effective support for employees navigating the current system may have greater impact than legislative reform alone.

6. Review and conclusions

6.1. From people with lived experience of pay discrimination 

Employees who experienced pay discrimination or broader discrimination impacting pay faced significant emotional, financial, and structural barriers when attempting to seek redress. They often encountered opaque pay structures, complex grievance procedures, and an inaccessible legal system. These challenges not only deterred many from pursuing justice but also led to lasting repercussions on their confidence, career progression, and trust in employers. Some felt pressure to sign non-disclosure agreements in exchange for financial settlements.

Challenges to seeking redress were particularly exacerbated for some cohorts of people, including:

• recent migrants, whose more precarious immigration status may deter them further from speaking up
   
• some disabled people who needed reasonable adjustments to navigate the grievance and legal processes 

Contract type also factored into employees’ or workers’ ability to seek redress, with outsourced workers reporting feeling like they had fewer rights or limited ability to challenge discriminatory practices compared to permanent workers. They expressed a heightened sense of insecurity and fear of contract termination, contributing to an overall feeling of job instability. 

6.2 From employers

Employers reported seeing few direct cases of pay discrimination. In terms of discrimination cases more broadly, several interviewees expressed concerns about a perceived increase in overall claims being brought forward but tended to respond by settling claims early to protect reputation and reduce costs. 

While some organisations were working towards greater pay transparency and structured processes, there remained a lack of transparency around pay, particularly around performance-related pay, and leadership remuneration. 

Employers often outlined best intentions for policies and procedures to prevent discrimination, but some employers and employees felt that approaches were inconsistent, sometimes “tick-box” exercises, or lacking meaningful follow-through.

6.3 From support organisations

Support organisations corroborated the employee and employer findings, confirming that only a small proportion of employees who experience pay discrimination reach the legal stage, largely due to barriers such as emotional toll, cost, limited legal understanding, and fear of consequences. Many claimants are unrepresented and struggle to complete employment tribunal forms or articulate their cases clearly, often holding unrealistic expectations of what the tribunal can achieve. The tribunal system itself was characterised as adversarial, slow, and ineffective, with long delays and limited capacity of enforcement within the existing system. 

Support organisations expressed mixed views on expanding equal pay legislation to cover race and disability, as this would be adding complexity to an already complex system, and possibly lengthening the process for those employees. They agreed that more effective support for employees navigating the current system may have greater impact than legislative reform alone.

6.4 Concluding remarks

While this research focused on individuals already in employment, several interviewees emphasised that discrimination often begins prior to employment during the recruitment process. This was highlighted as particularly true for disabled and ethnic minority people, resulting in many not reaching the stage of employment. 

For the purpose of this research, rich qualitative engagement with individuals across the 3 groups highlighted a number of challenges in the existing legislative process that impacted employees’ ability to seek redress and remedy for discriminatory treatment. The most common themes around this included a lack of transparency around pay, a lack of public understanding about rights and routes to redress, the complexity of the legal process, and the absence of adequate support at every step.

While legislation is one way to protect employees, several interviewees emphasised there was a need for more proactive and preventative measures. This included clearer pay grades and increased pay transparency, early-stage support, better employer accountability, and cultural change, to ensure that issues are identified and addressed before they escalate to litigation.

7. Appendices

7.1 Recommendations from research interviewees

7.1.1 Education and guidance

• Training for employers to build awareness of the disadvantages experienced by different population cohorts in the workplace [088] and to understand unconscious bias [009, 101] 
• Training for managers to give them the tools to have difficult conversations [023, 051, 093, 094, 095, 101] and compulsory training for leadership [106]
• Early education as part of the curriculum at schools on knowing your rights and the routes you can take to seek redress [051, 067, 103]: “this needs to be taught in schools, employment laws need to be part of the education system. So the employers know that people are coming in knowing there what the law is and therefore not likely to take advantage” [051]
• More guidance for employers on changes to legislation  [003, 007, 017, 022, 035, 091, 093, 105], including practical examples [097]. For example, guidance on how to do pay gap reporting [084] and making reasonable adjustments [035]
• More guidance for employees on what the tribunal process can and cannot do [049, 093, 095, 103]

7.1.2 Changes to wider legal processes

• Increasing the time limit for bringing claims to the employment tribunals so employees have more time to work with employers through internal processes [070]
• Reducing the time taken for a case to go through the tribunal [049, 074] and addressing the tribunal backlog [052, 074, 097]
• Setting stricter time limits for parties to respond or engage [020, 052]
• Capping the pay out for successful claims [095]
• Moving all discrimination claims into one tribunal process, rather than scattered across employment tribunals, county courts, and special educational needs tribunals [006] 
• Making it so that Independent Experts are responsible for creating job descriptions [019, 020, 037]

7.1.3 Ongoing monitoring and proactive identification of pay disparities

• Identifying ‘problem areas’ or industries with a high number of grievances or employment tribunal cases, and working with employers to improve their practices, for example through the auditing of exit interviews [070]
• Encouraging more employers to conduct job evaluations [007] 
• More ongoing engagement with employers [022]: “This is not groundbreaking, but there’s some employers who want to do the right thing, some employers who are doing the right thing and some employers who don’t want to do the right thing”. [093]
• Mandating pay gap reporting for organisations with less than 250 employees [106]

7.1.4 Enforcement

• Mandate rectifying actions for employers as a result of findings in pay gap reporting, or as a result of claims made [009, 022, 088]
• More accountability [084, 101, 102, 105]: “I know there’s a register published of employers who don’t pay national minimum wage. Perhaps we need something similar, for pay gaps.” [084] 
• Larger role of enforcement agencies with power to take a more punitive approach “I think there needs to be more stringent penalties if [employers] fail with their […] obligations for transparency and reporting” [030, 084, 103]
• More enforcement or the expansion of the powers of existing agencies to hold employers to account [002, 006, 010, 015, 022, 027, 051, 082, 086, 091] 
• Review section 23 of the Equality Act 2010 so that agreements with employers that have been investigated are no longer confidential, as this limits transparency about findings [010]
• Specific regulation for organisations who send over workers from abroad to manage the expectations of the roles and the routes for support available [060]
• Increased mandatory job evaluation schemes [007, 019, 020] “You may or may not agree with that, but at least it’s an analytic, analytical, logical and importantly a transparent process.” [019]

7.1.5 For employers

• Simplify the grievance process, especially for public sector organisations [070, 074]
• More pay transparency and clear HR policies [009, 063], with policies being accessible for those who need to use them [101]
• More concentration on culture within an organisation [057]
• More efforts to diversify management structures [074, 088]

7.1.6 For support organisations

• More regulation of Unions [070] and establishing a more constructive discussion between Unions and employers: “positive partnership, where they talk about things in a less formal structure” [022]
• Provision of more examples and case studies to bring legal jargon to life to help potential claimants understand their experiences, or more resources around what is acceptable in a workplace and where to go [058, 083, 071, 100]
• More tailored support for specific groups of people, including those whose second language is English [060] and neurodiverse people [028]
• Establishment of peer support groups to provide emotional support [083]
• More support working with people early in the process to validate their experiences [004, 015, 071, 084, 093]
• Provision of additional steps before legal action is taken [049] including a larger role for mediation [095]: “at the end of the day, this is about people talking to each other”
• Review mandatory conciliation step in the process [049, 052]
• Additional information on where to go and what support is available: “And don’t make it too wordy and too complicated because you just want to know the answer. Something to be able to search. Keywords and things would help.” [057, 103] and more accessible or simplified information [103]

7.1.7 Other

• Sponsorship visas to be directly handled by a third-party organisation so they cannot be used against employees [032, 034] and more protection and security around immigration status [015]
• Demonstrate the financial and other benefits of paying fairly, and equality and diversity [009, 067]
• Provide support to employers to be able to make reasonable adjustments, particularly for those in inaccessible physical environments [105]

7.2 Detailed methodology

7.2.1 Scope

This research included interviews with 3 categories of stakeholders:

• individuals with lived experience of pay or combined discrimination
• employers, or service providers who have responded to discrimination claims
• individuals who support those who have experienced discrimination, including lawyers, conciliators, and helpline advisors

This research was conducted in parallel with research into combined discrimination. Employers and service providers’ experiences of having a pay claim or a combined discrimination claim would be fairly similar, so both types of claims were discussed in the same interview. As a result, many of the overarching findings presented here have also been included in the combined discrimination report.

7.2.2 Sampling approach

This research set out a target sampling which ensured representation of interviewees across ethnicities, genders, and conditions or impairments which can be classified as disabilities under the law. It also ensured representation across sectors, size of employers, and employees who have and have not pursued formal claims.

7.2.3 Recruitment

Participants to the research were recruited through:

• working with partner organisations, to identify suitable individuals and to send out communications through their networks, for individuals to self-refer
• “snow-balling” of recruitment, which involves asking every individual involved in the research to pass on communications to their networks (whether professional, or friends and family), to reach as wide a range of individuals as possible

Organisations who have supported this research:^{[footnote 4]} 

• ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service)
• Advonet
• Association of University Legal Practitioners
• Chartered Management Institute
• Citizens Advice
• Discrimination Law Association
• Disability Law Service
• Employment Advice Legal Network
• Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
• Employment Lawyer association
• Equality Advisory and Support Service
• Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Fawcett
• FLEX (Focus on Labour Exploitation)
• Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
• GMB Union
• Law Centres
• Leigh Day
• NHS Resolution
• Race Equality Foundation
• Sandwell African Caribbean Mental Health Foundation
• Southwark Carers
• Unison Union
• Welcome in Hospitality, Travel and, Leisure
• West of England Centre for Inclusive Living
• Work Rights Centre

7.2.4 Interviews

Interviews lasted 60 minutes and were auto-transcribed. These were typically a 1:1 conversation with the interviewee and researcher, aligned to the topic guides. 

7.3 Lived experience interview summaries

7.3.1 Employees and workers

7.3.1.1 Pay discrimination on the basis of race

#	Interview summary
009	While working as an equality and diversity manager at a UK-based independent healthcare regulator (250 or more employees), this woman of Caribbean heritage discovered during an informal discussion that she was being paid less than a White, female colleague. She later learned that this colleague was also paid less than a White, male counterpart in another department. This person did not take action to challenge the disparity. (Pay discrimination)
011	While working as an intensive care unit nurse in healthcare (250 or more employees), this woman of Indian background reported facing discriminatory treatment after being placed on disciplinary action for a uniform issue. She felt that similar issues would not have led to discipline for her White colleagues. Over 5 years, she remained at band 5 despite applying for nearly 40 roles, and felt this incident had long-term consequences for her ability to progress. She did not take any formal steps to challenge this treatment. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
023	While working within a higher education institution (250 or more employees), this young woman of Chinese ethnicity felt that her ethnicity and her age caused colleagues to dismiss her and not take her seriously. She also believed her skilled work visa status made her vulnerable and discouraged her from seeking legal recourse. These experiences affected her confidence and perceived ability to progress. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
026	While working for over 30 years at a local authority (250 or more employees), this older woman of Indian background felt she experienced ongoing discrimination across different roles and teams. She was denied an honorarium while White colleagues received it, and was passed over for training opportunities in favour of less qualified colleagues. Though she raised a grievance through her union, it did not progress and she chose not to take legal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
032	While working for a small care provider (50 or fewer employees), this young Black man from Zimbabwe, on a sponsorship visa, reported being treated differently to staff who were UK nationals. He experienced unpaid overtime and unfavourable shift patterns. When other colleagues tried to leave, the organisation reportedly charged the employees for their sponsorship. With Union support, this person and colleagues successfully brought a case and received payment for owed wages and overtime. (Pay discrimination)
034	While working in a small care team (50 or fewer employees), this Black woman from Zimbabwe, also on a sponsorship visa, described long hours, every-weekend shifts, and experiencing racism from patients and staff. After raising concerns, she reported being singled out and assigned patients farther away compared to White colleagues, which increased her travel time, which was uncompensated as mileage was not reimbursed. She reports that her hours also did not match pay received. She joined a successful group claim via a Union, resulting in financial compensation. (Pay discrimination)
036	While working in a small team within a higher education institution (250 or more employees), this man of Indian background felt he faced racial and caste-based discrimination. Despite what he describes as high performance and strong qualifications, he reports being repeatedly denied internal promotions, with feedback labelling his applications “unclear”. He describes how on more than one occasion, internal roles were given to White candidates with no relevant experience, while the interviewee and other candidates of colour were deemed unqualified. He felt the process was influenced by personal networks and that institutional resistance to diversity blocked progression. He took no formal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
048	While working as an administrator for over 3 years in a medium-sized security company (50 to 250 employees), this eastern European woman experienced what she felt were unjustified negative reviews of her work and heavy workloads. Her manager made what she describes as derogatory remarks about her immigrant background, and following stress-related sick leave, she was dismissed on her return. She later discovered the company had not paid her National Insurance contributions, affecting her pension, and she had no formal contract, like many of her colleagues who were mainly immigrants. She brought claims of constructive dismissal, discrimination at work and breach of contract, with support from Citizens Advice and a solicitor, rejecting 3 settlement offers. (Pay discrimination)
058	While working as an underwriter at a mid-sized insurance company (50 to 250 employees), this mixed race woman felt isolated as one of very few employees from ethnic minority backgrounds, and felt that she experienced discrimination on the basis of race that impacted her pay, particularly around limited opportunities to progress. She described exclusionary team dynamics and pay reviews that held her to different standards than White peers, despite strong performance. She raised concerns informally and joined a Union but has not yet escalated formally. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
060	While working for an agricultural company in Northern Ireland (50 to 250 employees), this man from Kazakhstan on a Tier 5 visa reported being denied protective gear and assigned undesirable tasks, along with other non-British staff. After requesting leave, he reported being ignored for 2 weeks and not paid. He contacted Citizens Advice and the Equality Commission, and filed a Tribunal complaint after failed conciliation. The employer has since offered a pre-court settlement, which he has not accepted. (Pay discrimination)
070	While working in the public sector (50 to 250 employees) since 2017, this Black woman started on a lower salary than expected based on promises of performance review. Despite high performance, she reports that the promised review never came. She reports how her salary was frozen after an independent pay audit, while colleagues received raises. She also reports having had some of her responsibilities taken away from her. She filed a grievance, contacted her Union and Acas, and received a new salary with a year’s back pay through internal settlement. (Pay discrimination)
072	While working in the public sector (250 or more employees), this Asian British man experienced racist treatment from his manager, including offensive language and references to racist political groups. He received what he felt were unjustified poor appraisals which limited his pay increases and progression opportunities. He describes putting up with this treatment for 2 years, at which point his manager left without completing his final appraisal. He moved teams but felt that the negative appraisals impacted his ability to progress, as he was refused a promotion twice. He filed a complaint with HR and spoke with his Union, but did not escalate further. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
074	While working in healthcare (250 or more employees), this Indian woman was promoted to team leader and then faced what she experienced as discriminatory behaviour from her team and management, including feedback focused on her tone and communication. A grievance led to disciplinary proceedings which she reports as freezing her pay and progression for 18 months. She is awaiting mediation, has contacted Acas, and is considering a claim. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
083	While working as a programme manager in a cultural organisation (50 or fewer employees), this Black woman reported being paid less than a White male colleague with what she describes as the same responsibilities but a more senior title. She reports being passed over for promotion in favour of a White colleague despite her strong performance and felt held back in a White male-dominated environment. She sought Union support but did not take further action. (Pay discrimination)
088	While working in a public function (250 or more employees) for 14 years, this man of Indian background reported that he was denied training opportunities despite being the most senior team member. He felt race-based exclusion and discrimination prevented him from progressing and eventually left for a better work-life balance and to remove himself from what he described as a “toxic” workplace. He took no action to challenge the treatment. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
100	While working across multiple public sector roles (250 or more employees), this woman of Caribbean, Black, and Asian heritage entered local government 13 years ago in a junior post and was promoted quickly. However, she experienced limited progression after that. She reports that a managerial role was given to a less experienced colleague without an open interview process, and she also describes experiencing bullying and harassment from a former manager. She filed a grievance supported by Acas, which was upheld and led to agreed remedies. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)

7.3.1.2 Pay discrimination on the basis of disability

#	Interview summary
012	While working in a public involvement role at a higher education institution (250 or more employees), this woman, who had a hip injury, reported that her negative experiences began when her request for a reasonable adjustment – a standing chair – was refused. After 5 years in an externally funded position, this person felt discriminated against when told their role would continue at a lower grade, despite no changes to responsibilities. Concerned about the impact on her pension, she spoke to her union, who advised legal action. The university reviewed the case and offered a settlement, which she accepted. (Pay discrimination)
018	While working for a local council (250 or more employees) for nearly 30 years, this woman with mobility impairments felt she encountered repeated barriers to career progression. Despite applying for 15 different roles, she was unsuccessful, and reasons cited included health and safety concerns – even though she felt that she had already been performing many of the same tasks. This person also reported being asked if she would consider medical retirement or part-time work and had tasks reassigned to others. She raised concerns with HR and consulted EASS and Acas, and is currently exploring her next steps. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
028	While working across various healthcare organisations (250 or more employees) over 30 years, this woman received late diagnoses of autism and ADHD, alongside existing physical disabilities. She reported that despite disclosing these conditions, no adjustments were made. She felt trapped in Band 5 roles while others with less experience were promoted. After returning from sick leave, she was placed on half pay and offered redeployment, which she found upsetting. She sought support from her Union and Acas but did not take legal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
030	While working for the public sector in healthcare (250 or more employees), this man with a spinal injury reported that required management training for a pay increment was inaccessible via screen reader. During a consultation, he discovered a colleague with what he felt were similar responsibilities was several bands above him. Though he didn’t directly challenge the pay disparity, he filed a complaint about the lack of reasonable adjustments during the consultation process, which was settled pre-tribunal. (Pay discrimination)
039	While working in local government (250 or more employees), this woman who became a wheelchair user after a stroke felt her return-to-work was hindered by lack of adjustments. Despite securing her own mobility equipment and contributing to accessibility planning, she reported that building modifications were delayed. She went on sick leave and dropped to half pay and used annual leave to avoid further income loss. She reported a culture of ableism and sexism under male leadership, including being excluded from training and leadership roles. She filed multiple grievances and began a tribunal claim related to reasonable adjustments and pay discrimination. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
047	While working for a healthcare organisation (250 or more employees) and previously for the police, this neurodivergent woman felt that she experienced persistent bullying, microaggressions, and blocked access to adjustments. She was unsuccessful in several promotion attempts despite what she describes as strong qualifications, with concerns that her autism diagnosis was being held against her, and is now navigating redundancy. Her Union suggested she likely had a valid disability discrimination case, but she has not pursued legal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
054	While working at a major UK supermarket (retail, 250 or more employees) for nearly 2 decades, this autistic man with anxiety and depression felt unable to progress despite 2 applications for management roles. He reported being assigned undesirable tasks, moved without consultation, and denied advancement. Internal grievance processes felt inaccessible, and he did not pursue legal action, citing the complexity of employment law and uncertainty about his options. He also described being dismissed from an agency job in a prison with no explanation. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
063	While working in a senior management position in healthcare (250 or more employees), this woman with multiple sclerosis reported experiencing both gender- and disability-based discrimination. She felt assumptions about her health and future maternity plans led to missed roles and development opportunities. She believes these barriers have had a lasting impact on her pay and career progression. She raised concerns through managers, HR, and the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian, but did not pursue legal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
064	While working in the public healthcare sector since 2022, this woman, diagnosed with bipolar type 2, borderline personality disorder, and later ADHD, reported discriminatory behaviour from her manager, including refusal to support her promotion application. She believes assumptions about her social skills due to neurodivergence affected her progression. She raised concerns with her manager with support from a neurodiversity network but took no further action externally. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
071	While working in retail, hospitality, and animal care roles, mostly for medium-large companies, this autistic woman reported being denied hours and promotions and receiving unfair discipline based on behaviour misinterpreted as argumentative. She believes these experiences limited her earnings and delayed management opportunities. In her most recent role, she successfully used formal grievance routes to secure adjustments. She sought advice from unions, ACAS, and legal helplines but did not pursue legal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
077	While working for a charity supporting disabled adults in residential care for 15 years, this woman, who developed epilepsy following a traumatic brain injury, felt consistently overlooked for promotion. She noted other employees receiving favourable treatment and advancing while she remained in the same role. She did not take legal action. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
089	While working in digital roles in healthcare (250 or more employees) for over 10 years, this woman with mobility, neurological, and cognitive disabilities reported systemic barriers including inaccessible IT, poor support for expenses, and delays in receiving personal assistant support. She felt this caused her emotional stress, and harmed her health, finances, and career advancement, linking the issues to both disability and gender bias. She raised issues internally through HR, the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian, and the Ability staff network,and is considering a tribunal case if no resolution is reached. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)
102	While working in higher education (250 or more employees), this woman with chronic migraines, menopausal symptoms, and a suspected ADHD diagnosis reported challenges in securing reasonable adjustments after changing departments. She reports how requests for flexible and remote work and lighting accommodations were denied, leading to stress and sick leave. She believes this has limited her ability to continue to work full-time, with fewer accessible roles elsewhere offering comparable pay. She has started a formal grievance and is exploring a tribunal route with support from her union, ACAS, and the Disability Law Service. (Broader discrimination impacting pay)

7.3.2 Employers

#	Interview summary
049	A HR manager at a social housing provider that had recently merged with another housing association (250 or more employees). They have direct experience dealing with discrimination claims as a respondent and navigating employment tribunal (around 3 or 4 ongoing cases).
052	A national officer for trade union covering one public service, who has recently been the respondent in an employment (50 to 250 employees) claim made against the Union, including a claim made against him personally, which has been withdrawn. Included in the claim respondent sample rather than the support organisations because the interview was largely centred around his experience as an employer, noting he also provided a number of insights on the claimant side.
057	Previously a senior manager at a commercial training provider (professional services, 50 to 250 employees), providing HR support in their organisation’s grievance investigation into alleged disability discrimination. Direct involvement in internal grievance process or investigations with no reference to navigating the tribunal service.
067	A former HR director and now HR consultant with a career spanning several small to medium-sized enterprises (50 to 250 employees) in the construction, retail, and non-profit sectors. Previous experience in responding to claims at tribunal.
073	A senior project manager at a regional branch for a large construction company (250 or more employees), which relies on contractors for a significant proportion of business. No direct involvement in employment tribunals.
084	An employment lawyer working in private practice in Scotland. Experience representing both claimants and respondents, with the majority of her work sitting on the respondent side. Currently involved in equal pay litigation for a large retailer (have been in preliminary stage for 6 years, reaching up to 600 Employment Tribunal claims and 800 High Court claims). Included in the employer sample, the interview largely concentrated on experiences of claim respondents and the specific details of the case they are working on in retail.
086	Lawyers, including a senior partner at a private employment law firm with decades of experience supporting public sector employers (250 or more employers), an academic lawyer and a lawyer who provides in-house legal counsel for large organisations in media and broadcasting (250 or more employees). Direct involvement in previous employment tribunal cases. Included in the sample for employers as most attendees had worked in house and most of the interview was concentrated on experiences of employers.
094	A HR consultant, but had previously worked in HR for a large technology firm (250 or more employees), spanning both operational and strategic HR. Had been involved in company grievances but had not gone to a tribunal as a claim respondent.
095	2 senior HR professionals at a UK-based large financial services organisation (250 or more employees). Both involved in the organisation’s response to ongoing cases in the employment tribunal.
096	A senior in-house solicitor at a UK based university, with global presence (organisation with 250 or more staff in higher education sector), serving around 2,000 students. The interviewee’s specific role is to oversee legal and compliance matters, including employment and student-related cases. This includes the university’s response to discrimination claims, especially those that escalate beyond initial internal processes.
097	An in-house solicitor at a large university (250 or more employees) in the higher education sector, serving around 30,000 students. She has worked in this role for over 3 years, following earlier experience in private legal practice. Her role includes supporting HR with complex grievances, particularly those that reach the employment tribunal stage. She regularly manages discrimination cases, particularly those involving race, disability, and age, many of which reference more than one protected characteristic.
101	A personnel manager working within public services (250 or more employees). Responsible for dealing for staff within a specific region. No direct involvement in employment tribunals.
103	An independent HR consultant with a background as an in-house HR generalist. They have worked across a variety of organisations including publishing, private medical, technology startups, and professional services, typically within the private sector. The size of the organisations worked with ranges from small startups to medium-sized scale-ups (up to 250 employees). In their consultancy role, they concentrate on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policy development, pay transparency, and employee experience. They support clients through grievances, policy reviews, and pay audits, and have dealt with multiple formal complaints involving pay discrimination, often involving intersectional issues across gender, race, age, and disability.
105	A training and compliance manager at a small employment agency and labour provider (50 or fewer employees). The organisation serves clients across multiple industries, including hospitality, manufacturing, and public sector organisations, placing both permanent and temporary workers. They act as the legal employer for agency staff and facilitate placements into client organisations. Interviewee reflected on the complexity of managing discrimination and pay concerns when responsibility is shared between the agency and the client. In terms of legal processes, the organisation has not had a case proceed to tribunal but has been named alongside clients in early-stage claims. The company typically resolves complaints through informal means, including speaking with candidates and clients, documentation reviews, and meetings. They also rely on third-party legal and HR advice and have at times ceased working with clients who requested discriminatory recruitment practices.
106	A HR professional, has held senior HR roles in startups and scaleups within the technology sector with her last role being in a large organisation with 250+ employees. In both organisations, she was the most senior HR professional, responsible for overseeing compensation and recruitment. Her involvement with the legal process primarily related to managing internal grievances and claims if they did arise, including a notable case raised by a payroll manager that evolved into an equal pay dispute. Though she viewed the claim as opportunistic, the business opted to settle due to limited HR capacity and legal resources.

7.3.3 Support organisations

#	Interview summary
003	Leaders from within an independent body that provides free and confidential services to help resolve workplace disputes and provides support to employees navigating employment tribunals at different stages of the journey.
004	A knowledge manager at a helpline that supports individuals experiencing discrimination by providing non-legal advice to help people understand their rights, previously working as a helpline adviser. As part of their current role, they have an overview of the calls coming into the helpline including types of cases being seen.
006	A solicitor working at a community legal centre, providing support and advice across areas including employment, education and housing (partially funded by the Local Authority). The legal centre doesn’t offer individual casework but assists with legal awareness and informal advocacy, including working with community organisations.
007	An employment solicitor working in a legal charity offering free legal advice and representation. With decades of experience, including significant time on the claim respondent side, they now support claimants, particularly those with disabilities or insecure immigration status, helping at all stages in an individual’s journey from early advice to tribunal representation.
010	A chief executive of a combined Citizens Advice and Law Centre, and a discrimination lawyer working on welfare benefits. Their organisation provides holistic legal support, including employment and discrimination law, primarily for disabled individuals, often providing initial support in the early stages of an individual’s journey.
015	An advisor in policy and advocacy for a frontline charity providing support and advice around employment to migrant workers. The organisation offers legal consultations, casework, and tribunal representation, supporting clients facing a range of issues including wage theft, unfair dismissal, and discrimination based on race, sex, or pregnancy.
017	2 conciliators who work at an independent body, engaging with employees at the point of early conciliation, though occasionally even earlier through informal channels. Their role involves providing impartial information about legal processes, rights under the Equality Act, and potential options for resolution.
019	A consultant and Independent expert, conducting job evaluations in ongoing equal pay cases (currently specialising in the large supermarket cases), with a background in occupational psychology and job evaluation. This work supports tribunals by evaluating whether claimants and comparators are doing work of equal value, via assessing detailed job descriptions provided by the parties.
020	An independent expert who assesses job comparability in equal pay claims, primarily large-scale collective actions in the retail sector, with previous experience in designing job evaluation schemes for different organisations. Appointed by employment tribunals, they analyse job descriptions, conduct site visits, and apply a bespoke evaluation framework to determine if roles are of equal value. While not a support provider in the traditional sense, their work plays an evidentiary role in tribunal proceedings.
021	A member of the panel of independent experts, appointed to assess equal value claims under equal pay legislation. They work with tribunals to evaluate whether jobs of different types are of equal value based on job content and required skills, by analysing job descriptions, conducting site visits, and producing detailed reports for tribunals. While they do not directly support employees, their assessments are critical in establishing the validity of gender-based pay claims.
022	A former national women’s officer for a major trade union and previously led employment relations at a professional nursing body. Their work has spanned both negotiation and casework, particularly around equal pay in healthcare. Within the union, they have supported employees through grievance and legal processes and worked with solicitors to pursue strategic discrimination claims – especially involving maternity, disability, and race.
035	A conciliator at an independent body, engaging with employees at the point of early conciliation. This takes the form of working to resolve legal disputes and reach legally binding settlements between employees and employers before cases go to employment tribunal, where possible.
037	An independent expert for an independent body, conducting job evaluations working on equal value claims for employment tribunals. With over 15 years of experience, they support the tribunal in assessing whether different jobs are of equal value, primarily in large-scale retail equal pay cases. Their role involves reviewing extensive job descriptions, sometimes up to hundreds of pages, and producing detailed reports based on job content comparisons.
051	3 helpline advisors for an independent body who provide frontline, impartial advice to callers about workplace concerns. They are often the first point of contact for employees uncertain whether their experiences amount to unlawful discrimination. Their support includes explaining the law, outlining grievance processes, and signposting to further resources, such as the Equality Advisory and Support Service. While they do not offer legal advice, they help callers understand their options and manage expectations.
082	A representative from a small charity supporting migrant workers, offering both legal advice and full employment tribunal representation. The charity helps navigate complex legal barriers – for example, securing statutory maternity pay despite employers denying eligibility based on false worker classifications. They often pursue strategic litigation to highlight systemic failures, such as the disconnect between employment tribunals and HMRC.
091	3 lawyers, with experience on both the claimant and claim respondent sides. While not providing direct support to employees, their contributions inform policy debates and legal reform, representing both strategic litigation and the day-to-day realities of employment law.
093	A director of a network supporting employment law advice providers who also does case work for a charity offering free representation at tribunals. Through both roles, they support low-income individuals in navigating discrimination claims and providing advocacy and case preparation once a hearing is scheduled. They typically handle less complex cases due to the volunteer-led model.

7.4 Definitions

Expression	Definition
Discrimination	Discrimination means treating someone ‘less favourably’ than someone else, because of one of their protected characteristics. Less favourable treatment can be anything that puts someone with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage, compared to someone who does not have that characteristic. A person can discriminate against a disabled person if they treat them unfavourably because of something arising as a result of their disability, and they cannot show objective justification for the treatment.
Protected characteristic	There are 9 protected characteristics. These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation
Pay discrimination	By law, employers must not pay an employee less, or give them terms and conditions that put them at a disadvantage, because of disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or another protected characteristic.
Equal pay	By law, men and women must get equal pay for doing ‘equal work’. This is work that equal pay law classes as the same or broadly similar, equivalent or of equal value.
Lived experience	The knowledge and understanding that comes from personally experiencing something, including the emotions, perceptions, and goals that shape a person’s inner world
Barriers to redress	Anything which prevents individuals or organisations from remedying discrimination. This could include, but is not limited to, fear of retaliation, lack of trust, complex reporting processes, lack of understanding, or burden of proof.
Outsourcing	Understood broadly, outsourcing could be taken to refer to a range of situations in which there is some kind of intermediation between workers and the organisations that require their work (‘the principal’). This could include the use of traditional outsourcing of services through an external service provider but also the use of arrangements such as subcontracting, umbrella companies, labour providers or employment agencies. Outsourced workers provided by labour providers are sometimes called agency staff.
ET1 form	An ET1 form is used by employees or workers to make a claim to an employment tribunal when they think they have been treated unfairly by their employer, potential employer or trade union.
ET3 form	An ET3 form is used by employers to respond to a claim of unlawful treatment made by an employee to an employment tribunal.

1. Phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. ↩

2. Equal pay claims received by the employment tribunal went down from 28,801 in 2011 to 2012 to 8,509 in 2020 to 2021 (the latest complete data available), peaking at 35,558 in 2017 to 2018 in this time. It should be noted, however, that only a minority of equal pay claims go to the employment tribunal. See https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics#tribunal-statistics-quarterly ↩

3. Whisteblowing is the reporting by an employee of their employer’s wrongdoing, in the public interest. Often, claimants add whistleblowing to claims which involve them speaking out about their own personal grievances, rather than wrongdoing that affects others. ↩

4. Support did not always lead to recruitment of individuals for the research ↩