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. She is not alone in her lawsuit: six other plaintiffs are taking legal action against the Daimler Group.
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.
Regional Labour Court: Decision falls short of equal pay standards
On October 1, 2024, the Baden-Württemberg State Labor Court heard our Equal Pay lawsuit and issued a ruling on the same day. Like the Stuttgart Labour Court before it, the State Labour Court acknowledged that female employees at Daimler systematically earn less than their male colleagues. During the hearing, the company was unable to provide objective criteria that would justify a difference in pay. However, when it comes to the question of what wage difference the company owes the plaintiff, the Regional Labor Court deviates from previous equal pay standards. The court awarded the plaintiff neither the difference between her salary and the median salary of the male peer group nor the difference between her salary and that of her direct peer. Instead, it limits the claim to the difference between the female and male peer group.
This special approach by the Baden-Württemberg State Labor Court is incompatible with the equal pay principle. According to European law and the case law of the Federal Labor Court, the only decisive factor is whether an employee earns less than a male employee for the same or equivalent work. If the employer cannot justify the difference with objective criteria, he must equalize the salary in full. If the claim is limited to the difference between the two mean values, women would never be able to compare themselves with male colleagues in the upper half of the salary scale – even if there were no reasons for the salary difference.
The requirement for equal pay is regulated in Art. 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in Section 3 (1) and (7) of the German Pay Transparency Act (Entgelttransparenzgesetz - EntgTranspG). According to Section 3 para. 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 receives.
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.
Labour court: decision incompatible with the principle of equal pay
Previously, on November 22, 2023 the Stuttgart Labor Court had 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 also did not award her the difference to the salary of her direct colleague.
Even at first instance, Daimler was unable to sufficiently justify the salary differences. 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 in 2022 showed a high salary spread of almost 70 percent.
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.
