Introduction

On 29 December 1975 the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) came into operation in Great Britain – and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), its independent enforcement body, came into being. This legislation was path-breaking in rejecting, as a matter of principle, biological difference as a justification for inferior terms and conditions (EPA), and opportunities (SDA) in the workplace. Despite limitations, it was a significant victory for women. 

This paper takes the ‘birth’ of these nominal rights and their enforcement mechanisms as its starting point to discuss how this legislation has been mobilised across time. Women and men have had the right to formal workplace ‘equality’ as a legal principle for 50 years but the law on its own does not lead to equality in practice. Rights have to be realised, claimed, tested, interpreted, and made to work as they are leveraged through collective action, litigation and active lawyering. The paper asks what difference 50 years of workplace equality legislation has made for women, how women knew about and operationalised these rights, and what the experience of using the law has been across the five decades. The focus is on women here, since women’s inferior economic and legal status was the fundamental problem that the legislation sought to change.

The act equally applied to men and was mobilised subsequently by men and by men’s rights groups, especially around equalising pensionable age, although not examined here. Although by the late-1990s gender reassignment was determined to come within the remit of the SDA, the mobilisation of gender-identity rights by non-binary workers also warrants separate detailed discussion.

Why was the legislation symbolically significant?

The 1970s landmark legislation was the culmination of campaigns since at least the 1880s. In white-collar civil service roles, the same pay for men and women had been won in 1955 through collective bargaining. The 1970 EPA was an important step-change in establishing equal pay as a legal right for all women – including working-class women and private-sector employees. Until the early-1970s the idea of the ‘male breadwinner’ earning a ‘family wage’ was widely used in industry to justify different rates of pay for men and women doing exactly the same job, with women’s pay being viewed as ‘pin money’ to supplement household expenses. Jobs were widely advertised as for either men or women only.

General equal pay legislation became a realistic prospect in 1964 when it was included in the Labour Party manifesto, galvanising women’s organisations and cross-party female MPs to push for its implementation. Opposition came from business and male trade unionists who argued equal pay would be inflationary and burdensome on public sector budgets. By the late 1960s, key drivers for equal pay legislation were the UK’s interest in joining the European Economic Community (EEC), publicity surrounding the strike of female sewing machinists at Ford Dagenham in 1968, and the appointment of a determined Barbara Castle as Secretary of State for Employment (who tabled the legislation within six months of taking up office) providing crucial political leadership. The 1970 EPA stated that the terms and conditions of men and women employed on ‘like work’ or ‘work rated as equivalent’ (determined through job evaluation with headings such as ‘effort, skill and decision’) should not be ‘less favourable’ for one sex than the other. Although receiving the Royal Assent on 29 May 1970, the EPA provided employers with a five-year implementation period, coming into force on 29 December 1975.  

Yet, as campaigners highlighted, the principle of ‘equal pay’ was meaningless if women were discriminated against elsewhere in the employment process and education system or could be sacked because of their sex.  A series of private members’ bills outlawing sex discrimination were proposed between 1968 and 1973 by Joyce Butler MP, Willie Hamilton MP and Baroness Nancy Seear. The momentum was driven forward through concerted campaigning spanning traditional women’s organisations and a younger Women’s Liberation Movement. By summer 1973 both Labour and Conservative parties were persuaded by the demand for (anti-) sex discrimination legislation, with the resultant SDA steered through Parliament by Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Whilst also covering education and services, the SDA – receiving the Royal Assent on 12 November 1975 – made it unlawful to discriminate (directly or indirectly) on grounds of sex or marriage when offering employment, access to training and promotion, or on dismissal (all permitted previously). Additionally, the Employment Protection Act 1975 prohibited dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and granted maternity leave, coming into force in April 1977. 

Crucially, the legislation provided enforcement mechanisms, although it remained to be seen whether these had ‘teeth’. Firstly, equal pay and sex discrimination claims might be brought as individual cases before industrial tribunals (established in 1965 and renamed employment tribunals in 1998); whilst there was also a collective bargaining agreement route in the original act, this was removed in 1986. Secondly, the SDA set up the EOC to promote, investigate and enforce both pieces of legislation, including by providing legal assistance for cases deemed strategically important. The EOC existed for 30 years, until 2006 when it was rolled into the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) with other equalities regulators.

Monday 29 December 1975 was welcomed as ‘a great day for all women’ in the Daily Mirror and as ‘Equal pay day’ in The Guardian, although the Daily Mail asked whether the ‘loopholes’ in the law meant it was unlikely to be ‘the day women lose their ball and chain’. Newspapers carried full page advertisements for the EOC in the following months as the new body etched itself into public consciousness. 

What difference did the EPA and SDA make to wages?

As economic demographers have shown, the EPA and SDA appears to have had a fairly immediate impact (see Fig 1) in an economy still dominated by manufacturing and industry. Consistently across the early twentieth century, the average female manual worker had been paid 46% of the average male hourly rate. There was some improvement during the Second World War (given the gendered transformation of industry with male conscription), and then stasis during the 1950s-1960s. The steepest wage gap reduction took place between 1974 and 1976 as the end of the EPA’s implementation period loomed (Fig. 2 and Fig. 1). By 1976 the average female manual worker was paid 70% of the average male hourly rate compared to 60% only five years previously. Yet the shift was not seismic, depreciating somewhat in the early 1980s.

Fig 1: Raw gap between female and male mean hourly earnings as proportion of male hourly earnings (full-time employees). Source:  A. Bryson et al, A Short History of the Gender Wage Gap in Britain. IZA, 2020, Table 1; Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, mean gender pay gap series. Data for 1921-1981 is for manual labour, 1991-2001 for all employment.

Fig. 2 Raw gap between female and male mean hourly earnings as proportion of male hourly earnings (manual labour, full-time employees). Source: derived from H. Joshi et al, Why Are More Women Working in Britain? Journal of Labour Economics, 3, 1 (1985), Table 6.

Limited improvement in 1974-76 resulted from the UK government opting for the weaker concept of ‘equal pay’ for ‘same’ or ‘broadly similar’ work – rather than work of ‘equal value’ – in a labour market in which men and women’s employment was hugely segregated. Segregation was horizontal (in relation to occupational roles within places of employment) and vertical (into predominantly male and female sectors). Women tended to be clustered in lower-paid occupations such as cleaning, catering, personal services and clerical work. Different male and female rates for the ‘same’ work had mostly disappeared by December 1975, but very few industrial tribunal cases relating to ‘similar’ work were successful in the later 1970s-80s.

The UK was already behind EEC requirements given that the European Commission had adopted the concept of ‘equal value’ in 1975. Indeed, it successfully took the UK government to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1982 for failure to implement this.  The EPA was amended in 1983 to incorporate ‘equal value’ (coming into effect on 1 January 1984). In order to evidence such a claim, it was necessary to find a male ‘comparator’ within the same workplace – who would share confidential pay information and in relation to which a woman’s job might be evaluated. However, what constituted ‘effort’ and ‘skill’ were viewed through a lens associating work traditionally done by men with higher status and thus wages. Given the complexity, independent experts were introduced to advise on equal pay cases. Improvements to the gender wage gap (Fig. 1) appeared as trade unions and the EOC brought test cases in the 1980s.

The 1970s legislation started incremental improvement in women’s workplace equality more generally, although progression was uneven with setbacks along the way. Within the informal workplace cultures of traditionally male occupations – especially the fire and police services – resistance was apparent after the SDA, surfacing in bullying and harassment leading to sex discrimination tribunal claims in the 1980s-90s. The armed forces were excluded from the SDA altogether until 1994 when this was amended to refer to exclusion on grounds of ‘combat effectiveness’ only.

How did women know about and claim their rights?

That there was improvement at all in women’s pay and conditions was not the result of magnanimous employers or the law per se – but of women’s activism in asserting their rights. To do this, they needed to know about the details of the law and how to use it. Information circuits and support networks were crucial, as well as informal legal advice and formal legal assistance.

Projects such as the TUC’s Voices from the Workplace highlight how women in the trade union movement pushed for equal pay, initially through collective bargaining and industrial action in the 1970s, with women’s industrial militancy intensifying during the five-year implementation period. During the 1980s trade unions turned to the courts, shrugging off earlier scepticism regarding tribunals as biased towards employers, and as anti-union legislation made it harder to strike. In particular, they sought to test the boundaries of the law with regard to ‘equal value’. For example, Julie Haywood argued that the training and skills required for her job as a cook at Cammell Laird shipyards, Merseyside, were of ‘equal value’ to male painters and joiners. Her (ultimately successful) case (1984-88) was the first equal value case to be referred to an independent expert. Supported by the General and Municipal Boilerworkers (GMB) and the EOC, it took her 10 years to win the backpay she was due.

The trade union movement was extremely important in disseminating information about employment rights and supporting cases, representing a quarter of all EPA and SDA tribunal claimants in the 1980s. Collective action, through trade union organising (including official strike action) has been an extremely effective mechanism. But there were also tensions when the interests of male workers came into conflict with those of female employees. This was evident, for example, in 1970 when male workers at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil went on strike to oppose equal pay for female co-workers. It also arose as attempts were made to use the SDA to argue that workplace sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination, with trade union branches (in some cases) choosing to support male employees rather than female complainants. As large, complex and historically male-dominated organisations each with their own distinctive trajectory, trade unions varied in agility and support for extending women’s rights in the 1970s-80s.  

Despite the feminisation of the trade union movement since the 1980s, the majority of women seeking or engaged in paid work have not been trade union members: for a host of reasons, including working in non-unionised workplaces or being unemployed.

Other communications networks, were therefore, hugely important.

Feminist publishing, including the monthly magazine Spare Rib (associated loosely with the women’s liberation movement) which was published 1972-93 and stocked by high-street stationer W.H. Smiths, covered the progress of the sex discrimination legislation through parliament (1972-75), women-led industrial disputes (1970s-80s), and industrial tribunals involving EPA and SDA claims (1970s-early 1990s). It highlighted new resources and publications, events and workshops, and the setting up of women’s advice centres across the country, connecting with grassroots women’s groups.  In Scotland, guides to rights and resources (Scottish Woman’s Place and The Scottish Women’s Handbook written by Evelyn Hunter) were produced in the late-1970s and 1980s, emerging out of women’s liberation activisms in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where vibrant local groups promoting Legal and Financial Independence for Women had been set up (as elsewhere).

Although created to promote the legislation, the EOC was slow in developing high visibility publicity material and this role was initially covered by other women’s and advocacy groups. The most prominent of these was the ‘Rights for Women’ unit of the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL, now Liberty), which included feminist strategists Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harman, Tess Gill and Anna Coote, acting as an important bridge between the trade unions, women’s liberation movement, and radical legal expertise (employment and human rights lawyers). The NCCL was quick to publish easy-to-use guides on knowing and accessing ‘your rights’ in 1974-5, accompanying legal advice with wry feminist cartooning. As active lawyering tested and stretched the legislation, new toolkits were produced – including on sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination (in 1982) and on preparing equal value cases (in 1983). These guides – and free legal advice and representation – were available through networks of radical law centres, women’s centres and Citizen’s Advice Bureaux (CABs) across the country. The NCCL itself provided legal assistance for a number of key early cases (relating to part-time working and the maximum recruitment age for the civil service) where support had been declined by the EOC or unions.

By the mid-1980s, the EOC had become effective in using the law strategically and generating news stories around test cases in the mainstream media. The publicity enabled understanding of new interpretations of the law to reach both employers and workers. From the start, the ECJ (and the European Commission’s Equal Treatment Directive) was used by UK litigants, lawyers and equality advocates – including the EOC – to test the remit of what was viewed as sex discrimination. Through the ECJ, sex discrimination law was stretched to equalise compulsory retirement ages (1986); cover pensions (1990) and pregnancy discrimination (1994/5); cover the armed forces (1994); lift the cap on compensation (1993); and offer protection to trans people and in relation to gender reassignment (1996-1999).

General awareness of women’s workplace rights was facilitated by coverage in the mainstream popular press, especially ‘women’s page’ features. Although this coverage was often critical of viewpoints seen as overtly ‘feminist’ – and supportive of what was termed ‘common sense’ values – the idea that ‘equal opportunities’ was ‘good for business’ was widely accepted by the 1990s. That women’s experiences of workplace culture were an important discussion topic reflects the growing number of women entering journalism, the normalisation of work as integral to women’s lives (whether married or single), and the general incorporation of ideas about equality into everyday language.

Yet, interest in workplace gender equality has waxed and waned within the media. Rights are never won but have to be constantly asserted, claimed, rediscovered, and engaged with by each new generation, as new campaigning tools are generated to keep the issues alive. Access to high quality information and legal representation on employment rights remains crucial, especially for those who are more likely to be multiply-disadvantaged and in non-unionised or casualised sectors.

How has the law been experienced across the five decades?

The layering in of new applications, interpretations and extensions of the SDA and EPA – as a result of judgements in the UK’s appellate courts and the ECJ – created a complex legal landscape difficult to capture in any simple ‘step-by-step’ guide. The state preferred not to devote time to create new statute law despite the EOC regularly urging governments to do so. Nevertheless, the Equality Act 2010, pulled together by Harriet Harman MP as Minister for Women and Equalities (at the very end of New Labour’s third term of office), received the Royal Assent on the day the 2010 general election was called, consolidating and harmonising equal pay, discrimination (on grounds of disability, race and sex) and other equalities law (including around gender reassignment) and adding further protections in relation to age.

Whilst the 2010 Equality Act replaced the EPA and SDA, significant continuities remain, especially around the use of the tribunal process for discrimination and equal pay claims. Unlike north America, where ‘class action’ law suits can be brought on behalf of collective groups, a highly individualised legal model was adopted in the 1970s. Trade unions have had notable success since the 1990s in developing collective strategies through mass litigation mobilising tens of thousands of claims by women workers: by part-timers for backdated pension contributions and by low paid public sector workers for equal pay. Yet it has remained necessary for tribunal claims to be brought by individual women.

Claimants put themselves on the line within an adversarial model that is invariably personalised. In high profile cases this spills over into media coverage. Cases are often protracted, spanning many years from initial filing to appeal outcome. Without formal legal representation, claimants have modest chance of success – and whilst essential legal aid is available in some circumstances (as well as ‘no win no fees’ representation), this remains limited. CABs, Women’s Centres and Law Centres are vital as walk-in advice services but provision has remained piecemeal and vulnerable to cuts in times of austerity.

Across time (from the 1970s to today), women who have taken equal pay and discrimination cases through the tribunal and appeal court process have described their motivations as a matter of principle – for others as much as themselves – even though the experience of the highly individualised system is often extremely lonely. Although the cap on compensation was lifted in the 1990s, which was hugely effective in motivating employers to take note of their liabilities, compensation is rarely cited as claimants’ main motive. Whilst experiencing huge personal (and in some cases financial) cost, even those who have lost cases have often stated they would nevertheless do it again.  Most have referred to the need for bravery and resilience, helped by strong support networks.  These experiences were highlighted in Alice Leonard’s 1987 report for the EOC, surfacing, too, in women’s testimonies within newspaper stories and oral history interviews since.

Julie Hayward stated retrospectively that her equal pay case ‘was never about the money. It was the principle that drove me on’. Jean Porcelli, who won a landmark case relating to sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination in 1986, initially took out a loan to cover expenses before the EOC stepped in with legal assistance (pending a High Court appeal brought by her employer). Despite a huge toll on her health, she commented ‘I am very glad I took my case and very proud of what we achieved’. More recently, journalist Samira Ahmed, who won her equal pay claim against the BBC in 2020, has highlighted the importance of union support from the NUJ: ‘Without their financial as well as professional backing I don’t think I could have considered taking on the risk of going to an employment tribunal’. The issue was one of principle: ‘I thought I can’t live with this. I’d rather it was all made public and everyone knew the truth, regardless of what happens to me.’ For many there has been a clear vision of being part of a longer history of struggle for workplace rights that is also a matter of survival for low-paid women.

The gender wage gap has significantly reduced since 1975 – as a result of multiple policy drivers including national minimum wage improvements, public sector pay modernisation, nursery provision and higher education expansion. But finally closing the gap is decades off. This is partly because of intersectional disadvantages, including the combination of gender, motherhood and ethnicity. It is also a result of stark continuities in the gendered segregation of the labour market and the requirements for evidencing the ‘equal value’ of work at tribunal: through individualisation and comparators supplied by male ‘allies’ employed by the same organisation (if not necessarily the same workplace).  

Conclusion

Much greater pay transparency – especially in relation to the private sector where the state has often opted for softer voluntarist models – is essential for progress to continue. This requires not only mandatory gender pay gap reporting (compulsory for large businesses from 2017) but also ethnicity pay gap reporting (currently voluntary) and increased transparency around pay scales, grading, and performance-related pay.

Transparency also needs to be combined with proactive organisational approaches to achieving workplace equality – rather than leaving responsibility with individuals to bring anti-discrimination and equal pay claims.

The (current) Employment Rights Bill, due to receive the Royal Assent in late-2025, provides the framework for a huge package of measures with the potential to make a very significant difference (both directly and indirectly) to the gender pay gap.  Notably, this includes the publication of Equality Action Plans by large businesses.  But much will depend on the legislation’s phased implementation during 2026-27, entailing the drafting of regulations that will be put out for consultation prior to adoption.  The detail, and the extent to which proposals are diluted or become voluntary rather than mandatory and enforceable, will matter.

The 50-year history of equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation highlights the tendency to view workplace rights as a luxury to be dispensed with during economic downturn. This has been most apparent recently in relation to employers’ responsibility to protect workers from third-party sexual harassment. Such protection is crucial to women working in the hospitality industry, who are also more likely to face multiple and intersecting inequalities (in relation to age, race and class as well as gender). Included in the 2010 Equality Act, it was repealed in 2013 to reduce ‘legislative burdens’ during ‘austerity’. Brought back in 2024 as a preventive duty (following concerted campaigns on the back of #MeToo), the Employment Rights Bill promises to strengthen protection further by requiring employers to take ‘all reasonable steps’. What this means in practice and when it will be implemented are yet to be finalised. Economic circumstances should not be used to shift the goal posts on this and other measures or to fall behind European countries.

Finally, a revisioning of what is considered of ‘value’ (or as ‘hard’ and dirty’ work necessitating reward) is long overdue. The Employment Rights Bill proposes a vital step through the setting up of a national negotiating body to consider the remuneration, terms and conditions of social care workers, 80% of whom are women on low pay.  However, entrenched historical bias against rewarding feminine ‘soft’ skills requires more major correction. Women remain clustered in lower paid jobs, of which social care is the most cogent example. Equal pay is thus about tackling low pay for working-class women, who are central to family economies and relieving child poverty.