I have recently joined a large, well known, corporate organisation to manage a European function. At interview stage it appeared that the role advertised was a joint functrion to be headed up by two managers doing exactly the same role, same remit, number of employees, job spec etc.

The other successful candidate (male) having been in the role for just 7 months has just handed his notice in and during conversation I have learned that his salary is and has been higher than mine. I am paid an annual salary of 54,000 and he 59,000

Since starting the role during feedback sessions with my line manager we have discussed that I am the more experienced of the two, the natural leader etc etc. I have also learned that our selection followed a very different pattern. I had two interviews and was offered the position, whereas my collegue went through 4 stages. We started the job within a week of one another.

I am disgusted, offended, insulted, angry - to name a few emotive words!!

Can anyone tell me what my rights are? Do I have a case for sexual discrimination?

Thanks S

Hi S,

If you and the male manager were doing either the same work, like work or work of equal value then you have a prima facie case under equal pay legislation.  It will be worth asking your employer to explain the difference in pay between you.  To do this simply raise the issue formally using your company's grievance procedure (unless you want to adopt an informal approach to start with).

If your employer is able to provide a justification for the difference that is a genuine material factor (other than gender) then no discrimination has occurred.  Factors could include things like relevant qualifications, experience or market forces.  There is no definitive list but the reason given must be a substantial one (so for example "it just worked out that way" would not really cut it!).

If you are unhappy with the response you can go to an employment tribunal.  If your employer's justification does not stand up to scrutiny then discrimination has occurred.

That is the simplest response you can get to the thorny issue of Equal Pay.  The actual issues can be more complex in practice and I would strongly recomment that you take approrpiate advice before embarking on any course of action.

I cannot comment on whether the selection procedure is discriminatory without knowing more detail, but I can say that you are perfectly entitled to ask why there was a different process and make your own mind up about the answer.

I am happy to chat with you in more detail if you want to email me, or there are a number of other individuals/organisations who are regular contributors to this site who I am sure would be equally happy to help.

Good luck,

Dave Gilfillan

I would be cautious in talking about the shorter selection procedure as being 'evidence' of your suitability- it could just as easily be seen as evidence that you had preferential and less rigorous selection. 

The difficulty in your position is a) do you have evidence of a higher salary, as opposed to rumour b) is there justification (i.e different, longer, better experience or a higher last job salary or higher/more appropriate qualifications) for the company's decision regardless of how well he did the job c) how hard did you negotiate (if at all) compared to how hard he negotiated and d) is the difference big enough to prove significant unfairness. 

The fact that he 'proved' (your opinion) to be worse at the job is not the same as evidence of discrimination - employers are allowed to make reasonable decisions that don't work out for factors beyond their control.  The fact that they interviewed him four times actually suggests that they were more than careful.

There are additional complications in relying on your performance in the role (and evidence from a line manager).  It is perfectly reasonable for an employer to take on someone who they have concerns about at a lower salary who surprises them by outstanding performance - but still this doesn't mean the employer is in any way bound to increase the salary or is wrong in employing them at the lover rate. 

I have successfully argued for discrimination where, for example, male employees were excluded interview opportunities for an internal role, yet both internal and external female candidates with fewer qualifications were invited to interview, and when similar roles were given different gradings to male and female postholders, but it is harder when salaries are individually negotiated.

You may still win a case, but your better option may be to ask for an increase - especially as they are particularly vulnerable to you leaving when there is no second.