06.03.2023 | KPMG Law Insights

Ruling on equal pay – the end of salary negotiations?

Ruling on equal pay – the end of salary negotiations?

If an employer pays a woman a lower salary than a comparable male colleague, he cannot claim that the man negotiated better. This was decided by the Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) on February 16, 2023 (Ref.: 8 AZR 450/21).

A female sales employee had filed a lawsuit because she received a lower base salary than her two male colleagues despite doing the same work. In her lawsuit, she demanded payment of wages in the same amount as her colleague who was hired almost at the same time. The employer argued that the male colleague had negotiated better and had also succeeded a female employee with higher earnings.

The lower courts had dismissed the employee’s claim. The BAG, on the other hand, ordered the employer to pay a total of 14,000 euros in back pay and compensation of 2,000 euros.

Negotiating skills do not justify unequal treatment

The BAG ruled that the plaintiff had been discriminated against on the basis of her gender, as she received a lower basic salary than her male colleagues despite doing the same work.

Pursuant to Section 22 AGG, it is presumed that discrimination has occurred on the basis of gender. The employer would have had to disprove this. In the opinion of the BAG, however, he did not succeed in doing so. The argument that the male colleague had negotiated better was not sufficient for the BAG. Even the assertion that the colleague had succeeded a better-paid employee who had left the company could not rebut the presumption of discrimination.


Significantly less leeway remains for pay above the collective wage agreement

The ruling has far-reaching consequences for employers who do not apply fixed remuneration systems or pay salaries or allowances above the general pay scale. The scope for freely negotiated salaries is likely to become significantly smaller with the current decision. Even though the reasons for the ruling are not yet available, it can be assumed: If the employer pays employees of one gender higher salaries than those of the other gender for the same job, it will only be able to rebut the presumption of discrimination in a very limited number of cases.


How should employers act now?

With regard to threatened compensation due to discrimination, companies should analyze their salary structure for possible unequal treatment and document factual reasons for the identified salary discrepancies.

In order to avoid possible legal disputes in the future, it can be advantageous for employers if uniform and transparent compensation systems apply to all employees. The reasons for the court’s ruling may provide further approaches for the design of compensation systems, which should be taken into account by employers after publication. These remain to be seen.



Explore #more

13.06.2024 | Press releases

Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers honor KPMG Law Experts

Best Lawyers has once again identified the best commercial lawyers in Germany for 2024 exclusively for Handelsblatt. A total of 28 lawyers were honored by…

27.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Agreement on ecodesign regulation: products to become more sustainable

After lengthy negotiations, the Council and Parliament of the European Union reached a provisional agreement on the Ecodesign Regulation on the night of December 5,…

22.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

The AI Act is coming: EU wants to get a grip on AI risks

For many people, artificial intelligence (AI) is the great hope for business, healthcare and science. But there are also plenty of critics who fear the…

17.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Podcast series “KPMG Law on air”: When the family business is to be sold

Around 38,000 family businesses are currently handed over each year. In most cases, the change of ownership takes place within the family. But more and…

03.05.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Doubts about inability to work? What employers can do

The certificate of incapacity for work (AU certificate) serves as proof of incapacity for work due to illness. However, only if the certificate meets certain…

27.03.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

EU Buildings Directive: life cycle greenhouse potential becomes relevant

On March 12, 2024, the EU Parliament approved the amendment to the EU Buildings Directive. The directive obliges member states and, indirectly, building owners and…

19.03.2024 | Business Performance & Resilience, KPMG Law Insights

CSDDD: Provisional agreement on the EU Supply Chain Directive

The EU member states agreed on the CSDDD, the EU Supply Chain Directive, on March 15, 2024. Germany abstained from the vote. Negotiators from the…

21.02.2024 | KPMG Law Insights, KPMG Law Insights

The Digital Services Act – what does it mean for companies?

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is a key component of the EU’s digital strategy and came into force on November 16, 2022. As a regulation,…

15.02.2024 | KPMG Law Insights

Data compliance management: How to implement it in practice

Part 3 of the article series “Professional tips for data compliance management”   The third part of this series of articles deals with data compliance

14.02.2024 | Business Performance & Resilience, PR Publications

Guest article in ZURe: Monitoring the implementation of the LkSG

The current issue of ZURe (p. 20 ff.) contains a guest article by KPMG Law Partner Thomas Uhlig (Head of General Business and Commercial Law),…


Kathrin Brügger


Friedenstraße 10
81671 München


André Kock


Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

tel: +49 (0)40 360994-5035

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.