Half a century of getting even

The cause of equal pay for equal work had come to the fore of British public consciousness with the 1968 strike by women machinists at the Ford factory in Dagenham. The machinists, who created seat covers for vehicles, protested about a pay review that categorised their work as ‘unskilled labour’. Men doing similarly skilled jobs elsewhere in the factory were classed as performing ‘skilled labour’ and paid 15% more for work of the same value.

Barbara Castle, then secretary of state for employment and productivity, intervened to bring the strike to an end. She also introduced what became the Equal Pay Act 1970, which enshrined the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

Yet the world of work had five years to prepare for its implementation – generous by modern standards. And while it is seldom referenced, with equal pay a foundational principle of the European Economic Community through the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the UK had in theory been willing to adopt equal pay laws when the country was rejected for membership of the bloc in both 1961 and 1967.

No silver bullet

Implementation of the acts in 1975 was no silver bullet. In 1983, the European Commission took the UK to the European Court of Justice, which determined that the UK was in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive for not implementing the ‘equal pay for work of equal value principle’ despite the Equal Pay Act. The court found that the act had not been fully enforced or applied consistently.

Well into this century, too, there have been long-running cases involving supermarkets such as Tesco and Asda over whether the pay of female staff working in stores is comparable to that of male colleagues in distribution centres.

‘Whatever happens in the courts and tribunals, there is a difference between what the law decides and the execution of that decision,’ says Carla Bennett, legal officer at UNISON. ‘Private sector employers often delay settling cases. A CEO knows that they are only in post for a few years, so can avoid liability for a huge payout by shifting responsibility on to their successor.’

Gender pay gap reporting was introduced in 2017. As of April 2025, the median gap between men and women across all business sectors was 6.9%, according to the Office for National Statistics. The numbers are based on hourly pay, and women are more likely than men to work in part-time jobs, which have lower median pay.

Monica Kurnatowska, senior counsel in the employment and compensation group at the London office of Baker McKenzie, stresses: ‘Women are still bearing a large proportion of responsibility for childcare and other caring responsibilities, something that we can only change through normalising equal parenting.’

The latest legislative attempt at amelioration is the EU Pay Transparency Directive, adopted in 2023. Requirements include making pay ranges public in job ads, prohibiting employers from asking about pay history and requiring gender pay gap reporting and analysis.

Penny Morrison, senior associate at employment boutique Osborne & Wise, says: ‘The directive aims to address the secrecy that still exists over what individuals are paid for the same work and sets a new standard for pay equity by requiring clear, proactive disclosure of pay information and robust protection against pay discrimination.’

While this directive does not apply to the UK post-Brexit, Morrison notes: ‘It nevertheless raises the bar for transparency and puts fresh pressure on UK employers to match these higher standards, particularly for those employers with a presence across both jurisdictions.’

Going further

The Sex Discrimination Act went further than the Equal Pay Act’s focus on pay and contractual terms. It made it unlawful to discriminate against individuals in respect of hiring, promotion or training, in educational institutions, and in the provision of goods and services.

The concepts of direct and indirect discrimination were introduced, allowing for a broader range of claims. Direct discrimination is treating someone less favourably because of their sex. Indirect discrimination is where a policy or practice applies to everyone but disadvantages a group of people because of their sex. Victimisation is when someone is treated unfairly because they raise a complaint about discrimination.

Before the Sex Discrimination Act was passed, it was not unlawful to require women to resign their jobs upon marriage or refuse to promote them because of their sex. Pregnant women and new mothers had no protection from dismissal. If an employer preferred the maternity cover, or to employ women without children, there was no redress. Discrimination also extended to property rights; the SDA allowed women to take out a mortgage without the counter-signature of a man for the first time. Both acts were key steps on a long road to equality.

‘There is no doubt that the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act were landmark pieces of legislation that reframed women’s roles in the workplace,’ says Kurnatowska. ‘Many aspects that we now take for granted, however, such as protections against sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, were not initially obvious and took years of case law to develop.’

Sexual harassment

The Sex Discrimination Act did not make any specific provision for sexual harassment. The idea that the law should cover this was a relatively new concept at the time, with serious discussion confined to women’s groups and trade unions, which had taken notice of feminist activism on US college campuses in the early 1970s.

Instead, the link between discrimination and sexual harassment was established the hard way, through cases working their way through the 1980s judicial system. In September 1983 there was widespread coverage of a ‘milestone case’: the first industrial tribunal to rule that sexual harassment was discrimination under the 1975 act.

A young female executive, Miss Walsh, had been sacked because she slapped a company director and poured lager over him following his behaviour towards her at an office party. Her case was taken up and her legal costs paid by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).

Although steps were taken to bridge the gaps in the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act through statutory means, they were not always successful. Campaign group the National Council for Civil Liberties, now Liberty, worked with the TUC and the Labour party to support a new Sex Equality Bill, which defined sexual harassment as discrimination. Introduced into parliament by Labour MP Jo Richardson in December 1983 as a private member’s bill, it fell at the first hurdle.

The first definitive ruling making the link between the Sex Discrimination Act and sexual harassment by a British court above tribunal level came from the Scottish Court of Session in Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli [1986]. Jean Porcelli was a school lab technician who experienced ‘vindictive unpleasantness’ at work, such as lewd insults from male co-workers. This was viewed as deliberately intended to force her out of her job.

Legal principles on sexual harassment have recently been extended further, with the UK following Australia’s example by introducing a positive duty on businesses to prevent sexual harassment.

The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which came into force in October last year, imposes a positive, proactive legal duty on all employers to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment before it occurs. ‘Reasonable steps would include, among other measures, regular risk assessments, monitoring, robust reporting and complaints procedures, and appropriate, consistent action where issues are identified,’ explains Morrison.

The Employment Rights Bill currently making its way through parliament is expected to extend protections further by requiring ‘all’ reasonable steps to be taken – a much higher bar for employers to clear. With the duty to prevent harassment of employees by third parties, such as clients or customers, likely to be included in the bill, significant safeguards in customer-facing industries, such as hospitality and retail, will be required.

Whistleblowing protections are also being expanded to include disclosures over sexual harassment. Non-disclosure agreements preventing workers from speaking out about discrimination and harassment are set to be banned.

Equality Act

The Sex Discrimination Act stood for 35 years until it was replaced by the Equality Act 2010, consolidating all previous anti-discrimination law into one statute. Nine protected characteristics are now shielded from unfair treatment: age; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; disability; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited, as are harassment and victimisation.

The EOC has been replaced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which enforces the act, provides advice to public authorities and individuals, and takes legal action where required.

So what remains undone? Menopause has recently come to the fore as a disadvantage that women face in the workplace and has the potential to encompass three protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: sex, disability and age. Morrison says: ‘Employers who fail to support employees struggling with the impact of the menopause may face several discrimination claims.’

Progress in parental rights

Progress has been made in recognising discrimination against women for pregnancy and maternity. A landmark case on pregnancy in the workplace was Dekker v VjV-Centrum [1990] in the European Court of Justice, which established that refusing to employ a woman because of her pregnancy was direct sex discrimination.

The court ruled that, unlike other types of sex discrimination, a pregnant woman does not have to be compared with someone who is not pregnant to demonstrate discrimination.

There is more to come here too. At the moment, eligible employees can take up to 52 weeks’ maternity leave, with statutory maternity pay for up to 39 weeks, while qualifying fathers can take statutory paternity leave for up to two weeks. Fathers and mothers can also share parental leave if the mother assigns some of her maternity entitlement. Despite these allowances, a 2023 report by the Department for Business and Trade found that take-up of shared parental leave was poor, with only 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers opting for it.

The Employment Rights Bill, expected to come into force in early 2026, will introduce day-one rights for maternity and paternity leave, eliminating the current requirement for 26 weeks of service for paternity leave and one year for parental leave. Kurnatowska comments: ‘The bill includes incremental protections such as parental bereavement leave and proposed new rights for pregnant workers, but no sweeping legislative shifts.’

Parental bereavement leave is also likely to be extended to include early pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, granting employees at least one week of unpaid leave for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.

The concept of leave has already been widened to cover adoptive parents, carers’ leave and neonatal leave for those with newborns in hospital.

The bill also proposes the doubling of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims. Shantha David, head of legal services at UNISON, says: ‘Extending the limit from three to six months will allow claimants, especially pregnant women and new mothers, the chance to resolve issues before turning to overstretched tribunals. That’s something that most people in this situation would prefer.’

Cultural change required

In summary, the sex discrimination and equal pay acts laid down a strong legislative foundation without which the Equality Act would not have been possible. Case law has fleshed out what constitutes discrimination and continues to do so.

‘Sex discrimination claims continue to be brought, of which indirect discrimination claims are the most common,’ says Bennett. ‘An example of this is when employers insist on a nine-to-five working pattern, which disproportionately affects women due to caring responsibilities.’

Yet we have a way to go before parity of opportunity and reward is achieved between the sexes. According to recent research by campaign groups Pregnant Then Screwed and Women in Data, about 74,000 women a year lose their jobs due to pregnancy or maternity leave, a rise from 54,000 a decade ago.

‘Although the legal framework on sex discrimination is now strong, further progress rests on societal change,’ says Kurnatowska. ‘Measures that encourage men to take paternity leave and supporting women returning from maternity leave will help all workers balance their responsibilities at home and in the workplace.’

She points to role-modelling by men in senior positions as critical to moving the dial here.

The law now provides considerable formal protection over issues that have dogged the progress of women in the workplace, such as pregnancy, maternity and sexual harassment, although there will always be pressure to do more.

The Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act were landmark pieces of legislation. Yet the persistence of the gender pay gap today underlines the fact that changing culture and the way the workplace is structured is more of a challenge than enacting black-letter law.

Katharine Freeland is a freelance journalist