IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i3p595-634..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pay Transparency, Information Access Rights and Data Protection Law: Exploring Viable Alternatives to Disclosure Orders in Equal Pay Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria Hooton
  • Henry Pearce

Abstract

Equal pay litigation is often highly technical, with a drawn out and costly legal battle for claimants. This is somewhat because of the way equal pay law is constructed, as the requirement to have specific, named comparators can be an area of intense dispute. The complexity and length of cases look set to increase as the parameters of equal pay for work of equal value are explored, and occupational segregation is challenged in the employment tribunals and courts. This article considers one of the largest obstacles to quick and efficient equal pay litigation: the imbalance of access to information between employer and employee. The difficulties of applications for disclosure orders are discussed, alongside pay transparency measures and the recent proposals for a right to direct access to a suspected comparator’s pay data. We consider whether the proposed right is a viable, swifter route to information parity and greater efficiency in equal pay litigation, in light of the experience of freedom of information requests regarding equal pay. Specifically, we note the tension that may arise between the ‘Right to Know’ a comparator’s pay, and the data protection obligations of the employer.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria Hooton & Henry Pearce, 2023. "Pay Transparency, Information Access Rights and Data Protection Law: Exploring Viable Alternatives to Disclosure Orders in Equal Pay Litigation," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(3), pages 595-634.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:595-634.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac028
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:595-634.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.