Unfortunately, women are still paid less than men, despite the legal obligation that rests on employers to pay men and women equally. For years, efforts have been made to solve this problem, but with a wage gap of 13%, there is still a long way to go. Recently, another step in the right direction has been taken with a ruling by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (ruling 2024-34).

A female security guard at the Ministry of Defense discovered 4 years after signing her employment contract that a male colleague, in the same position, had been classified at a higher level upon starting employment than she had. The woman took the position that her employer thereby made a prohibited distinction based on gender, without good reason.

The court, where the woman simultaneously had proceedings against her employer, rejected her request to adjust the salary retroactively. The male security guard had 7 years more work experience than the woman at the time of his appointment. His last earned salary could therefore be taken into account as one of the factors for classification.

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights ruled differently. Aligning with the last earned salary cannot provide justification for pay differences when equivalent work is performed. The amount of the last earned salary says nothing about the quality and value of the work performed. This difference can, for example, be caused by employees coming from a sector where salaries are generally higher. This standard can even result in maintaining existing wage differences between men and women. It is therefore not a neutral standard.

Regarding the difference in work experience, the Institute rules that it is not clear why the male security guard would have a better foundation than the woman. Both had no relevant work experience in the security industry. The woman had even completed security guard training with 300 hours of professional practice training, while the man had not.

The Institute rules that the employer made a prohibited distinction based on gender by paying the woman less for her equivalent work than her male colleague.

The woman has filed an appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal against the court’s decision. With the Institute’s ruling in hand, she has a good chance that her employer will have to repay the wage difference, either voluntarily or after a ruling by the higher court. It has now been made public that the employer has discriminated, and in many cases the court follows this ruling or the dispute is still resolved behind the scenes to prevent further reputational damage.