Germany: Federal Labor Court sets new standard for equal pay litigation

In brief

In October 2025, the German Federal Labor Court issued a landmark ruling on equal pay. The key takeaways from the decision of 23 October 2025 (8 AZR 300/24) are:

  • One comparator suffices: The Court ruled that an employee can establish a presumption of gender-based pay discrimination by showing that a colleague performing the same or equivalent work receives higher pay.
  • Burden of proof shifts: Once this presumption is established, the employer must demonstrate that the pay differential is based on objective, gender-neutral criteria. Failure to do so obliges the employer to match the comparator’s remuneration.
  • Dashboard data counts: Internal compensation dashboards introduced to ensure compliance with equal pay requirements and the Pay Transparency Act may serve as valid evidence in support of such claims.
  • EU alignment: The decision reflects a more employee-friendly approach and aligns with the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which must be implemented by June 2026.

Currently, only the official press release is available, so a full analysis of the Court’s reasoning will follow once the complete judgment is published.


Contents

Background

In this ruling, an employee sought retroactive equal treatment from her employer regarding several components of her remuneration that had been granted to certain male colleagues. Her claim was primarily based on information from a “dashboard” that the employer had made available on the company intranet as part of implementing the German Pay Transparency Act. The comparators she referenced earned salaries above the median for all male employees at the same hierarchical level. In response, the employer argued that the top-paid colleagues did not perform work of equal value and further justified the employee’s lower remuneration by citing alleged performance deficiencies.

The Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court initially dismissed the claim for compensation for the difference in remuneration compared to the specified reference persons. It reasoned that a presumption of gender-based pay discrimination could not be based solely on a single male comparator. Given the size of the male comparator group and the median earnings of both genders, the court concluded that there was no “overwhelming probability” of pay discrimination.

However, the Federal Labor Court partially overturned this decision and remanded the case to the Regional Labor Court for further factual findings. Crucially, the Federal Labor Court clarified that an “overwhelming probability” of pay discrimination is not required, as such a standard would conflict with EU law. Instead, a presumption of gender-based pay discrimination arises as soon as the claimant demonstrates that the employer pays a higher salary to a colleague performing the same or equivalent work. At that point, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the pay differential is based on objective, gender-neutral criteria. If the employer fails to rebut the presumption, they must pay the same remuneration as that received by the comparator.

The Federal Labor Court further emphasized that this presumption applies even if the male comparator is the highest-paid employee within the relevant group. Additionally, it acknowledged that internal compensation dashboards introduced to ensure compliance with equal pay requirements and the Pay Transparency Act may serve as valid evidence in support of such claims.

This decision signals a more employee-friendly approach to equal pay litigation in Germany and aligns with the goals of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which must be implemented nationally by June 2026. In October 2025, Germany’s Commission of Experts published its final report on the implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive. The report offers practical recommendations to help employers comply with upcoming requirements, focusing on reducing bureaucracy, clarifying legal obligations, and supporting digital solutions.

Recommendations

The decision reinforces the Federal Labor Court’s established approach to equal pay cases under EU law. The requirements for transparent remuneration structures are steadily increasing. Employers should therefore take proactive measures to mitigate the risk of equal pay claims. This means reviewing and, where necessary, revising compensation systems to ensure that pay decisions are based on clear, documented, and gender-neutral criteria. HR and legal teams must be prepared to justify pay differentials with robust evidence, as the burden of proof now rests with the employer once a comparator is identified.

With the upcoming implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive, companies should also anticipate stricter transparency and reporting obligations. Early compliance will not only reduce exposure to legal claims but also help safeguard against reputational risks.


Copyright © 2025 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.