Immigration compliance and equality law in the United Kingdom: The tension continues

This question has grown more pressing as UK sponsors must ensure sponsored workers are paid in line with Home Office salary requirements under the skilled worker route, whilst managing equality law risk where others doing the same job are paid less.

The Employment Tribunal decision in Gharabli v Cedar Hope Care Services Ltd illustrates this tension directly.

Ms Gharabli was employed as a support worker by Cedar Hope Care Services Ltd. She learned that overseas colleagues on skilled worker visas were being paid GBP 12.31 per hour, whilst she and other non-sponsored workers received GBP 10.50. Approximately 80% of the workforce held sponsorship visas. After she filed a complaint and her pay was increased, Ms Gharabli resigned in June 2024 citing discrimination. Her indirect race discrimination claim succeeded.

The tribunal found that the employer's pay structure (a provision, criterion or practice applied to all staff) disproportionately disadvantaged non-sponsored workers, who were predominantly of a different national origin to the sponsored cohort. This, therefore, amounted to indirect race discrimination.

While the tribunal accepted that complying with Home Office salary requirements was a legitimate aim, it held that immigration compliance alone did not satisfy the proportionality test. The employer had to demonstrate there was no less discriminatory means of achieving that aim. No financial evidence was produced to show why matching non-sponsored workers' pay was prohibitive – particularly given that the majority of staff were sponsored and the roles were identical. The employer's willingness to raise the claimant's pay upon complaint further undermined its position. The tribunal awarded compensation in excess of GBP 14,000, including GBP 10,000 for injury to feelings.

This first-instance decision is not binding, but signals how tribunals may approach pay disparities arising from sponsorship obligations. For UK sponsors, the core message is clear: immigration compliance does not displace equality law obligations. 

Sponsors should:

• Test salary-setting decisions through an equality lens;
• Consider whether non-sponsored workers in equivalent roles can be brought to the same rate of pay; and
• Document the reasoning, alternatives considered, and supporting evidence.

A blanket assertion that higher pay for sponsored workers is required by immigration rules is unlikely to justify indirect discrimination against non-sponsored employees.

---

Andreas White is a partner in Kingsley Napley's employment team. He has substantial experience advising employers, senior executives, and partners on complex employment and partnership matters, with a particular focus on high-value disputes, discrimination claims, restrictive covenants, and cross-border employment issues.

Marcia Longdon is a partner in Kingsley Napley's immigration team. She has over 25 years’ experience practising in immigration, nationality, and European law, and is recognised as a leading expert in corporate immigration, advising businesses and individuals on complex UK immigration matters.

Özlem Mehmet is a senior professional support lawyer in Kingsley Napley's employment team. She has over 10 years’ experience practising as a solicitor in the field of employment law, and has experience teaching law and professional legal skills at postgraduate level.