Equality Act 2010, section 131

Assessment of whether work is of equal value

Part 9 Enforcement

(1)This section applies to proceedings before an employment tribunal on—

(a)a complaint relating to a breach of an equality clause or rule, or

(b)a question referred to the tribunal by virtue of section 128(2).

(2)Where a question arises in the proceedings as to whether one person's work is of equal value to another's, the tribunal may, before determining the question, require a member of the panel of independent experts to prepare a report on the question.

(3)The tribunal may withdraw a requirement that it makes under subsection (2); and, if it does so, it may—

(a)request the panel member to provide it with specified documentation;

(b)make such other requests to that member as are connected with the withdrawal of the requirement.

(4)If the tribunal requires the preparation of a report under subsection (2) (and does not withdraw the requirement), it must not determine the question unless it has received the report.

(5)Subsection (6) applies where—

(a)a question arises in the proceedings as to whether the work of one person (A) is of equal value to the work of another (B), and

(b)A's work and B's work have been given different values by a job evaluation study.

(6)The tribunal must determine that A's work is not of equal value to B's work unless it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the evaluation contained in the study—

(a)was based on a system that discriminates because of sex, or

(b)is otherwise unreliable.

(7)For the purposes of subsection (6)(a), a system discriminates because of sex if a difference (or coincidence) between values that the system sets on different demands is not justifiable regardless of the sex of the person on whom the demands are made.

(8)A reference to a member of the panel of independent experts is a reference to a person—

(a)who is for the time being designated as such by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) for the purposes of this section, and

(b)who is neither a member of the Council of ACAS nor one of its officers or members of staff.

(9) “Job evaluation study” has the meaning given in section 80(5).

Definitions used in section 131 3

employment

“employment” and related expressions are (subject to subsection (11)) to be read with section 83;

Defined in s.212(1) · see it in the full Act
breach of an equality clause or rule

(8)A reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule is a reference to a breach of a term modified by, or included by virtue of, an equality clause or rule.

Defined in s.212(8) · see it in the full Act
Member

(10) “Member”, in relation to an occupational pension scheme, means an active member, a deferred member or a pensioner member (within the meaning, in each case, given by section 124 of the Pensions Act 1995 ).

Defined in s.212(10) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 131 4

P Mallik v Arriva Kent and Surrey Limited

[2025] EAT 139 · 9 September 2025

Where differently rated work is the subject of an equal-value question, the Tribunal must determine that the work is not of equal value unless there are reasonable grounds for suspicion under section 131(6)(a) or (b). The Tribunal’s failure to address the claimant’s challenge to the study rendered its decision unlawful. (see paras [39]-[45]) The Tribunal had to address the claimant’s contention that the job evaluation study might be based on a system that discriminated because of sex. Its reasons did not do so. (see paras [33]-[45]) The Tribunal had to address the claimant’s substantive challenge that the job evaluation study was otherwise unreliable. The EAT held that the reasons did not explain why her arguments failed to provide reasonable grounds for suspicion. (see paras [41]-[45])

Heather Brady & Ors v North Lanarkshire Council & Ors

[2025] EAT 69 · 15 May 2025

The Tribunal had to determine that the work was not of equal value unless there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the evaluation was sex-discriminatory or otherwise unreliable. The EAT held that the statutory enquiry did not require all local evaluations to be impugned merely because some individual evaluations were flawed. (see paras [29]-[32]; [50])

K Element & Ors. v Tesco Stores Limited

[2022] EAT 165 · 31 October 2022Limits

The provision applies where an employer relies on a job evaluation study that gives different values to the jobs in order to resist an equal-value claim. Only then must the Tribunal consider whether the evaluation was tainted by sex discrimination or otherwise unreliable. Those matters are not additional requirements under section 80(5). (see paras [109]; [113]; [119])

What each judgment says about section 131 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Explanatory note

428.Where an employment tribunal has to decide if the work of a claimant and comparator are of equal value, this section gives it the power to require an independent expert, designated by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to prepare a report on the matter.

429.Unless the tribunal withdraws its request for a report (in which case it can ask the expert to give it any documents or other information the expert has to help it make a decision) it must wait for the expert’s report before deciding whether the work is of equal value.

430.If there has been a job evaluation study in relation to the work involved and the study finds that the claimant’s work is not of equal value to the work of the comparator, the tribunal is required to come to the same decision unless it has a good reason to suspect that the study is discriminatory or unreliable.

431.This provision replaces similar provisions in previous legislation.

All the explanatory notes for the Act

Amendments and notes

1 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Commencement

  1. I51S. 131 wholly in force; s. 131 not in force at Royal Assent see s. 216; s. 131 in force at 1.10.2010 by S.I. 2010/2317, art. 2(1)(9)(f) (with art. 15, and subject to transitional provision in art. 7)