Equal pay lawsuit against Daimler: We are fighting for equal pay
Jointly with a head of department at Daimler AG, we are suing for equal pay. She is not alone with her claim: six other plaintiffs are taking action against the Daimler Group. On October 1, 2024, our case will be heard in the second instance at the Baden-Württemberg State Labor Court in Stuttgart.
The plaintiff has been employed for almost thirty years at Daimler AG. More than 15 years ago, she was promoted to department head at E3 level. This is the third hierarchical level of senior management at Daimler.
Since returning from part-time parental leave, the plaintiff has earned significantly less than her male colleagues at the same level. Between 2018 and 2022, the plaintiff's median monthly salary was 18% lower than that of the male peer group. If other salary components are included, the average was even over 23 %, with peaks of up to 39 %. The allocation of virtual shares to male E3 managers, for example, was up to 140% higher than for the plaintiff. The plaintiff also earns around 30% less than her direct colleague in the same division, even though they have both been with the company for the same length of time, were promoted in the same year and are equally qualified.
Incompatible with the principle of equal pay
On November 22, 2023, the Stuttgart Labor Court ordered Daimler at first instance to pay the plaintiff the difference to the median salary of the male peer group in the amount of a five-figure sum for a period of five years. The court did not award her the difference to the salary of her direct colleague. The court justified this by stating that women affected by pay discrimination can at most demand an adjustment to the mean or median of the male peer group.
This is incompatible with the case law of the Federal Labor Court and the ECJ. The requirement of equal pay is regulated in Art. 157 TFEU and in Section 3 (1) and (7) EntgTranspG. According to Section 3 (2) sentence 1 EntgTranspG, a direct disadvantage in terms of pay already exists if an employee receives, has received or would receive lower pay for the same or equivalent work than an employee of the other gender. For the equal pay principle, it only matters whether the comparable person performs the same work or work of equal value and receives more money for it. In this case, wage discrimination is assumed and the employer must justify the difference in salary.
It is irrelevant whether the colleague with whom a woman compares herself is in the middle or at the top of the salary scale. An employee can also compare herself with people in the upper half of the comparison group and demand a corresponding salary adjustment. The employer is free to justify the difference in salary to the higher earning colleague with objective, transparent factors that have nothing to do with gender. Relevant qualifications or longer relevant professional experience can rebut the presumption of pay discrimination.
In the case of Daimler AG, the salary difference could not be sufficiently justified. The company does not have a transparent, comprehensible and objective remuneration system for E3 managers. Instead, line managers are free to decide how the available budget is allocated to department heads. As a result, the salaries of the more than 200 E3 department heads at Daimler AG in 2022 showed a high salary spread of almost 70 %.
GFF is experienced in the fight against pay discrimination
The case against Daimler AG is the third equal pay lawsuit supported by the GFF. In the case of ZDF journalist Birte Meier, the Federal Labor Court clarified that even permanent freelancers are entitled to information in accordance with the Remuneration Transparency Act. Our plaintiff Susanne Dumas, who earned significantly less than her direct colleague at a metalworking company in Saxony, was proven right by the Federal Labor Court: employers are not allowed to deviate from the principle of “equal pay for equal work” just because a man demands a higher salary than his female colleague.
