Equal Pay & Compliance

The Problem: Equal Pay & Compliance

• Proving compliance with Equal Pay Act and Equality Act Section 80(5) job evaluation requirements.

• Defending against equal pay claims with auditable, evidence-based role scoring.

• Identifying hidden pay disparities between equal value roles.

• Demonstrating fair, objective pay structures to regulators, unions, or tribunals.

A legally compliant job evaluation must focus on the actual demands placed on the person performing the job, not on abstract categories or generic role labels. Section 80(5) of the Equality Act 2010 defines a job evaluation study as one that evaluates jobs “in terms of the demands made on a person by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making.” These factors are not ends in themselves; they are categories for examining the real and concrete demands involved in carrying out the work. To be valid, an evaluation must capture the full range of those demands as they are experienced in practice, including physical effort, mental effort, emotional labour, problem-solving, and decision-making responsibility. If significant demands are omitted, the evaluation risks being considered incomplete and not legally reliable.

Guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) sets out clear standards for lawful and effective schemes. A compliant job evaluation must be analytical, breaking the job down into measurable factors and assessing each based on factual evidence rather than impression. It must be thorough and impartial, ensuring that no important demand is undervalued or overlooked due to gender bias. This includes properly recognising demands that are common in roles dominated by either men or women, such as manual handling or interpersonal skills, and ensuring neither is weighted unfairly. The language used throughout the scheme must be gender-neutral, describing the work in objective terms without assumptions about who typically performs it.

Transparency is also essential. The process, criteria, and scoring must be clear, documented, and open to scrutiny. Evaluators should be trained, apply the scheme consistently, and represent a mix of perspectives to reduce the risk of bias. The EHRC further recommends regular monitoring of both the evaluation process and its outcomes to detect and correct any emerging inequalities. A scheme designed and operated in this way provides an auditable, legally defensible foundation for pay decisions. It allows organisations to show that their pay structures are based on fair and objective assessments of job demands, helping to prevent disputes and ensuring compliance with equal pay law.

The Solve: Reward Logic

The Reward Logic methodology aligns with the Equality Act 2010 and EHRC guidance by directly evaluating the demands placed on the person doing the job across five dedicated demand dimensions: Cognitive Variability, Temporal Intensity, Relational Complexity, Consequence Density, and Asymmetric Clarity. These dimensions capture the real mental, interpersonal, and decision-making requirements of the role, ensuring the evaluation is grounded in the work as performed rather than in job titles or assumptions.

The process is analytical, breaking roles into distinct, independently scored dimensions with clear level definitions and written justifications. It is thorough and impartial, applying the same transparent demand criteria to all roles and recognising different types of work demands, including those common in both male- and female-dominated jobs. All descriptors are written in gender-neutral language, and each evaluation is fully documented to create an auditable record that supports fair pay, progression, and compliance with equal pay law.

Demand Dimension	What It Measures
Cognitive Variability	The mental range, novelty, and problem-solving complexity required in the role.
Temporal Intensity	The time pressure, pace, and simultaneity of demands on the role-holder.
Relational Complexity	The depth, diversity, and emotional labour involved in managing interpersonal relationships and stakeholders.
Consequence Density	The scale and significance of the impact of errors or decisions made in the role.
Asymmetric Clarity	The extent to which the role requires action and judgement despite ambiguity, incomplete, or contradictory information.