In the recent case of Thomas v Tindall Riley, Ms Thomas was offered a role with an overall salary package of £110,000. She declined on the basis that the offer was too low. The Respondent then recruited another candidate on a lower salary package of £100,000 but incurred an additional £15,000 in recruitment fees, making the total cost of hiring the comparator higher.
Ms Thomas claimed that this amounted to less favourable treatment because the Respondent had been prepared to incur £115,000 to hire the comparator, but had offered her only £110,000.
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claim, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld that decision. The EAT confirmed that, under Section 13 of The Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination requires the Claimant to have been treated less favourably than a comparator. On the facts, Ms Thomas had been offered a more favourable salary package than her chosen comparator. In this case, the Respondent’s own additional recruitment costs were irrelevant.