A company is condemned for paying its male employees more

First judgment against the pay gap. Condemns a company for paying its male employees more

In recent times, Spanish society has moved in relation to the elimination of wage gaps in companies based on gender and it is worth celebrating that it seems that the courts, in this time, they are going in line with this line.

Thus, we must celebrate the first sentence that has been produced in our country that expressly condemns the gender pay gap.

This is the resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, of February 14, 2018, based in Malaga, which condemns the defendant company to restore the right of the worker who denounced to receive the same salary as the rest of the male managers of the company and additionally, to pay compensation of 35,000 euros for the concept of damages caused by the inadmissible behavior of the company.

The judiciary of our country has joined the celebration of this pioneering ruling by issuing a statement on the matter. It reflects the fact that the worker alleged a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination by receiving lower salaries than those paid to the other department heads of the defendant company, all of them men.

The specific facts contained in the sentence are that the worker, during the years 2010 to 2017, “has received remuneration substantially lower than that of the other heads of department, all of them men ”. Specifically, it is expressed in the following terms.

In the case at hand, the account of the proven facts of the appealed judgment shows that the plaintiff during the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 has received some remuneration substantially lower than that of the other four department heads of the defendant company, all of them men, since in 2014 the plaintiff received a total of 37,897.60 euros, while the rest of her colleagues had the same category received remuneration between €39,622.56 and €41,222.64, increasing these differences in 2015 (the plaintiff received €37,897, €60 compared to €42,022 for her colleagues) and in 2016 (38,047 €43,650.04 for one of her colleagues and €48,950.12 for the remaining three).

Furthermore, it is proven that the amount paid to the plaintiff as an incentive was less than that paid to the rest of the heads of the department , there being some differences that in the last two years have come to exceed €2000.

Therefore, it is unquestionable that the plaintiff in recent years has received lower wages than the other four department heads of the company, All of them are men, therefore, in the face of these discriminatory indications, it must be the company that certifies that the difference in pay of the plaintiff with respect to her male colleagues, who have a similar professional category and qualification and perform jobs of equal value (department managers), has an objective and reasonable justification and is unrelated to any discriminatory purpose.

This justification has not been produced in the present case, since the appellant limits itself to pointing out that the plaintiff in years much earlier than those that are the subject of this litis came to receive salaries that were even higher than those of the rest of the department managers, as well as that the different departments have different tasks and responsibilities and that there are other company managers (territorial delegates) among whom men receive less compensation than their female counterparts.

This in no way can imply that objective and reasonable justification of the different wage treatment given to the plaintiff in recent years, especially if we take into account that there is no It has not been specified or specified to what extent the plaintiff’s department has fewer powers and responsibilities than the rest of the company’s departments and that in this litigation the defendant is not accused of discrimination based on sex with respect to all female workers of the company, but solely and exclusively with respect to the plaintiff.

Consequently, since the company has not been able to disprove the existence of pay discrimination between the plaintiff and her male colleagues, the reason must be dismissed and the court ruling confirmed regarding the violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination in wages based on sex.

Additionally, we must point out that the Superior Court of Justice itself, when establishing compensation for damages, which is set at the 35,000 euros imposed by the court of instance, it stated the following:

The lower court judgment considers that the plaintiff’s right to equality and non-discrimination based on sex has been violated, given that she received substantially lower remuneration to that of the other department managers of the defendant company, all of them men, so the violation of said fundamental right necessarily entails the existence of, at least, some moral damages for the worker who has suffered said violation, Non-material damage that does not require the full accreditation of certain and specific damages, but rather that they are produced automatically and that will be set in their amount prudently by the trial court as long as they have been claimed by the plaintiff in her lawsuit.