Equal pay disputes under the new rules: what an employer must be able to prove

An employee wishing to claim equal pay generally knew little about colleagues’ pay and had to put before the court facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Act No. 76/2026 Coll. on equal pay for men and women, in force since 7 June 2026, changes both of those things at once: employees have gained a right to information about pay, and an employer that breaches the new duties generally takes on the entire burden of proof in a dispute.

Who may claim what

A natural person has the right to monetary compensation for harm caused to them by a breach of the right to equal pay. The monetary compensation is provided in such an amount that the natural person is placed in the same financial position as if the breach of the right to equal pay had not occurred.

— Section 11(1) of Act No. 76/2026 Coll. (unofficial English translation)

Under Section 11(2), the compensation may include:

• unpaid pay, that is the difference between the pay that should have been due and the pay actually paid;
• compensation for lost opportunities, that is for access to benefits dependent on the level of pay;
• compensation for non-pecuniary harm;
• compensation for other harm, including harm from intersectional discrimination;
• default interest on the unpaid pay.

The Act speaks of a natural person, not solely of an employee, so a former employee may also bring a claim. Under Section 119a(2) of the Labour Code, employees of the same sex also have the right to equal pay for the same work or work of equal value; the special rules in Sections 11 and 12 of Act No. 76/2026 Coll., however, are tied to equal pay between men and women.

Limitation

The limitation period is three years and runs from the day on which the injured person learned, or could have learned, of the breach (Section 11(3)). It does not run during court proceedings, nor during the investigation of a complaint the employee has lodged with the employer. Two lessons follow for a business. Information it provides to employees under Section 6 may be the moment from which they are taken to have learned of a difference. And internal investigation of complaints should be conducted swiftly, because limitation is suspended while it lasts.

The burden of proof in two stages

In discrimination cases generally, the employee must put before the court facts from which a breach of the principle of equal treatment may reasonably be inferred; only then must the employer prove that it did not breach it (Section 11(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act). The new Act adds a stricter stage:

Where an employer has breached the duties laid down in Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 8 or Section 9, it is required to prove in the dispute that no discrimination occurred, even if the natural person under Section 11(1) does not put before the court facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that the right to equal pay was breached; […]

— Section 12 of Act No. 76/2026 Coll. (unofficial English translation)

Those provisions cover information on starting pay and the prohibition on asking about previous pay (Section 4), making pay criteria available (Section 5), information to employees on request (Section 6), the pay report (Section 8) and joint assessment (Section 9). It is therefore enough, for example, to fail to answer an employee within the two-month period, or to require candidates to state their current pay, and the employee need no longer put before the court facts indicating discrimination. The exception applies only where the employer proves that the breach was manifestly unintentional and less serious.

The duty to introduce a pay structure (Section 3) is not among the provisions listed. Its absence tells in another way: without recorded criteria, the employer will struggle to prove what a difference rests on.

The employer’s defence

A difference in pay is not in itself unlawful. Differential pay justified by objective criteria not based on discrimination is not a breach of the right to equal pay (Section 1(3)). The defence therefore rests on documents, not on explanations assembled after the event for the court:

• a recorded pay structure and categories of employees under the criteria in Section 3;
• pay criteria made available to employees under Section 5;
• records of why and on what basis a particular wage, increase or bonus was decided;
• performance assessment under rules known in advance, not by impression.

Bear in mind, too, that an employee need not compare themselves only with a current colleague. The Act permits comparison with people employed at a different time and, where no comparator can be found, an assessment of how the employee would have been treated in a comparable situation (Section 13).

When a request or complaint arrives

Deal with a request for information under Section 6 within the time limit and precisely; the procedure is covered in our answer on an employee’s request for pay information. On a complaint, check which category the employee is in, whom they compare themselves with, and whether the recorded criteria explain the difference. Watch the supplementary components; the gap often hides in bonuses and benefits rather than in basic pay, as explained in our answer on bonuses and benefits under equal pay rules.

Where a difference cannot be objectively explained, the unpaid pay grows every month and default interest accrues on top of it. Prompt correction and an agreement with the employee tend to be cheaper than a dispute in which the employer bears the burden of proof.

Prevention

Compile and record categories and criteria before anyone challenges them; guidance is in our answer on employee categories and work of equal value. An overview of the duties and deadlines under the Act is in the article on the Equal Pay Act: what employers needed to have in place.

We prepare pay audits, categories and documentation that will stand up in a dispute through pay transparency. Where a dispute or complaint is already under way, we represent you in negotiations and before the court through employment disputes and settlements.