{
  "id": 6135852,
  "title": "Next dodges ‘hammer blow’ with equal pay court victory",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/07/next-dodges-hammer-blow-with-equal-pay-court-victory",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-09-07T12:29:13.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "City AM",
    "slug": "city-am",
    "url": "https://www.cityam.com/next-dodges-hammer-blow-in-equal-pay-victory/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Retail giant Next has secured a significant equal pay victory, allowing the company to pay warehouse workers more than its shop-floor staff. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in the company's favor, stating that its defeat would have been a \"hammer blow\" to retail employment in the UK. Next justified its decision to pay warehouse operatives a higher rate, citing recruitment and retention pressures that do not apply to sales workers. In August 2024, over 3,500 current and former Next employees won a six-year legal battle against the company after initially losing at the Employment Tribunal. Law firm Leigh Day, representing the claimants, said the retailer could be forced to pay out up to £30 million. The EAT ruled that it is legally justifiable for Next to pay warehouse employees a higher basic rate than store assistants. Next stated that the successful appeal affirmed a principle in the employment market that employers must pay what is necessary to recruit workers, without having to raise the pay of other employees without a valid reason. The claimant law firm, Leigh Day, called the ruling \"mixed\" and noted that while the findings that store workers performed work of equal value but were paid less remain legally binding, they still disagree with the EAT's decision on basic pay.",
  "summary": "Retail giant Next has won an equal pay appeal allowing it to pay warehouse workers more than shop-floor staff, warning that its defeat “would have represented a hammer blow to retail employment in the UK”. The FTSE 100 retailer told shareholders on Monday that it was justified in paying its warehouse operatives a higher rate [...]",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}