Tesco fails in Court of Appeal bid to challenge equal pay job assessment approach

In a judgment handed down 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed the supermarket giant’s challenge to the Employment Tribunal’s approach to determining the job facts of Tesco customer assistants and warehouse operatives as part of the equal value process. 

The ruling comes during an ongoing Employment Tribunal hearing in relation to Tesco’s defence, where the supermarket is seeking to justify paying predominantly female store workers less than predominantly male distribution centre workers. Lawyers at Leigh Day, acting for more than 16,000 shop workers say Tesco cannot lawfully rely on so-called “market rates” to justify the pay gap. 

A central issue in the appeal was Tesco’s attempt to prevent the Tribunal from relying on the company’s own training materials and operational documents to determine what work customer assistants and warehouse operatives were required to do.  

The CoA upheld the Tribunal’s approach, recognising that Tesco operates in a highly regulated environment, uses sophisticated digital stock systems and maintains extensive and detailed training materials designed to ensure work is carried out consistently across its stores. 

The CoA accepted that Tesco had a “strong business need” for customer assistant and warehouse operative roles to be performed in the same way throughout its operations and upheld the Tribunal’s finding that Tesco’s training materials could properly be treated as determinative of what the company required staff to do unless there was clear evidence to the contrary. 

Lawyers at law firm Leigh Day say the judgment is significant because it rejects attempts to force thousands of workers bringing equal pay claims to individually prove every aspect of their jobs where the employer itself has standardised how the work should be done. 

The CoA also repeated criticisms of Tesco’s approach to the evidence before the Tribunal, including concerns about the nature and presentation of witness evidence relied upon by the supermarket during the litigation. 

The judgment additionally provides important guidance that tribunals in large-scale equal pay litigation may in appropriate cases assess jobs more generically, rather than requiring every claim to be examined on an overly individualised basis. Lawyers at Leigh Day say the clarification could help prevent unnecessary delay and complexity in mass equal pay claims involving large employers. 

Kiran Daurka, employment partner at Leigh Day, said: 

“The Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of removing unnecessary hurdles that prevent everyday people from accessing justice in complex equal pay litigation. This judgment is a welcome clarification that, in large-scale cases involving sophisticated respondents like Tesco and other large retailers, tribunals can take a practical and proportionate approach to assessing jobs, which then mitigates against unnecessary complexity to delay or obstruct claims. 

“Our clients have always maintained that these cases should focus on the reality of the work being done, not on creating artificial barriers that make equal pay claims impossible to pursue. This ruling will help future claims progress in a more streamlined and accessible way.”