QMUL Academic Wins Post-Maternity Equal Pay Claim – Law360

Report on Gender Pay Discrimination at Queen Mary University of London and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Case Summary

A judicial tribunal has determined that Queen Mary University of London engaged in discriminatory practices against a senior female academic. The ruling, dated November 26, 2025, found that the university paid the academic less than a male colleague of equivalent standing. This pay disparity was observed in the years immediately following the academic’s return from maternity leave, highlighting a significant case of gender-based pay discrimination within a higher education institution.

Violation of SDG 5: Gender Equality

The tribunal’s finding represents a direct contravention of the principles outlined in Sustainable Development Goal 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. The case specifically undermines several key targets:

• Target 5.1: The ruling confirms an instance of discrimination against women, which this target seeks to end in all forms everywhere.
• Target 5.5: Pay inequity acts as a substantial barrier to ensuring women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership in economic and public life.
• Target 5.4: The link between the pay disparity and the academic’s maternity leave points to the “motherhood penalty,” a systemic issue related to the failure to recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work, which disproportionately affects women’s economic standing.

Implications for SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

This case also has significant implications for SDG 8, which promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. The failure to ensure pay equity is a violation of the core tenets of decent work.

1. Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value: The incident is a clear failure to adhere to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, a central component of SDG Target 8.5.
2. Economic Disempowerment: Discriminatory pay practices contribute directly to the economic disempowerment of women, hindering the inclusive economic growth envisioned by SDG 8.
3. Productive Employment: Such discrimination creates a workplace environment that is not safe, secure, or equitable, thereby failing to promote productive employment for all workers as stipulated in Target 8.8.

Broader Context: SDG 10 and SDG 4

The ruling against Queen Mary University of London also relates to broader sustainable development objectives concerning equality and education.

• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The case is a clear example of an institutional practice that increases inequality of outcome. It directly opposes the objective of Target 10.3, which is to ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome by eliminating discriminatory policies and practices.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): As an institution of higher education, the university has a responsibility to model and promote principles of equality and inclusion. By engaging in discriminatory practices, it undermines its role in fostering an equitable educational environment and promoting the values of global citizenship and human rights central to SDG 4.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article directly addresses gender equality by highlighting a case of gender-based discrimination in the workplace. The core issue is a female academic being paid less than her male counterpart, which is a clear violation of the principles of gender equality.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • This goal is relevant as it promotes “full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value.” The pay disparity mentioned in the article is a direct contradiction to the principle of decent work and equal pay.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article discusses an inequality of outcome (unequal pay) based on gender. SDG 10 aims to reduce such inequalities and ensure equal opportunity by eliminating discriminatory practices, which is precisely what the tribunal’s ruling addresses.

2. Specific SDG Targets

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
   • The tribunal’s ruling that Queen Mary University of London “discriminated against a senior academic” directly relates to this target. The case is a specific instance of the economic discrimination that this target aims to eliminate.
2. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value.
   • The central theme of the article—a woman being paid less than a male colleague for comparable work—is a textbook example of the failure to achieve “equal pay for work of equal value.” The fact that this occurred after her maternity leave also touches upon ensuring decent work for women throughout their careers.
3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…
   • The legal action and subsequent ruling by the tribunal represent the mechanism for eliminating discriminatory practices. The inequality of outcome is the pay gap between the female academic and her male colleague, which the ruling seeks to rectify.

3. Mentioned or Implied Indicators

1. The Gender Pay Gap
   • The article’s core issue of a woman being paid “less than a male colleague” is a direct reference to the gender pay gap. This implies the use of an indicator like 8.5.1: Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by occupation, which is the primary metric for measuring progress towards equal pay.
2. Existence and Enforcement of Legal Frameworks Against Discrimination
   • The article mentions a “tribunal has ruled” on the matter. This implies the existence of a legal system to address discrimination claims. The ruling itself is an indicator that this framework is being enforced, which is a way to measure progress towards Targets 5.1 and 10.3. The number of such reported and adjudicated cases can serve as a measure of both the prevalence of the problem and the effectiveness of the response.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: law360.com