At a Glance
- Paying the Skilled Worker minimum salary does not automatically justify paying sponsored workers more than others in equivalent roles.
- Pay structures that appear neutral can still create indirect discrimination risk, particularly where they disadvantage non-sponsored workers.
- Failures in areas such as pay structures and worker treatment can expose sponsors not only to discrimination claims, but also serious regulatory consequences, including licence suspension or revocation.
A recent England and Wales Employment Tribunal decision has highlighted a growing risk for UK sponsor licence holders: pay disparities between sponsored and non-sponsored workers performing the same role.
The Case
In Mrs G Gharabli v Cedar Hope Care Services, a support worker discovered that colleagues sponsored under the Skilled Worker route were paid £12.31 per hour, while non-sponsored workers in the same role received £10.50 per hour.
The employer argued that the higher pay rate was necessary to comply with Home Office minimum salary requirements for sponsored workers.
Based on the evidence presented to the tribunal, approximately 80% of the workforce comprised overseas workers who were paid at the higher rate.
Cedar Hope Care Services maintained that these overseas workers undertook additional duties, including community-based work and the preparation of social reports for court proceedings.
The claimant brought several claims, including discrimination and whistleblowing. The tribunal ultimately upheld indirect race discrimination and whistleblowing claims.
Tribunal Findings
The tribunal accepted that complying with immigration salary thresholds can be a legitimate aim. However, it found that this alone was insufficient to justify the pay disparity.
Critically, the employer failed to demonstrate that the pay difference was proportionate. In particular, it did not provide evidence explaining why it could not increase the pay of non-sponsored workers or adopt a less discriminatory approach.
What This Means for Sponsors
This decision reinforces that immigration compliance does not displace employment law obligations:
- Paying the Skilled Worker minimum salary does not automatically justify paying sponsored workers more than others in equivalent roles.
- Pay structures that appear neutral can still create indirect discrimination risk, particularly where they disadvantage non-sponsored workers.
- Employers must be able to objectively justify any pay disparity, supported by clear evidence.
Where sponsored and non-sponsored employees are carrying out substantially the same role, differences in pay are likely to attract scrutiny. Employers should ensure that any disparities reflect genuine differences in role, responsibilities, or business need.
The case also underlines the importance of documenting decision-making. Sponsors should be able to evidence why alternative, less discriminatory approaches (such as aligning pay) were not feasible.
Practical Steps
In light of this decision, and in order to meet compliance requirements, sponsors should consider:
- Auditing pay structures across sponsored and non-sponsored employees
- Ensuring pay differences are clearly justified and documented
- Reviewing whether roles are genuinely equivalent in practice
- Aligning pay where possible to reduce discrimination risk
- Coordinating immigration and HR teams when setting salaries
Final Point
As sponsor licence compliance continues to tighten, this case serves as a reminder that sponsorship obligations sit alongside, not above, wider employment law duties.
This is particularly important given the sharp increase in Home Office enforcement activity. Recent data shows that Skilled Worker sponsor suspensions rose from 60 in Q4 2022 to 1,600 in Q4 2025, increasing further to 1,712 in Q1 2026, while revocations increased from 43 to over 1,500 in the same period.
Against this backdrop of heightened scrutiny, failures in areas such as pay structures and worker treatment can expose sponsors not only to discrimination claims, but also serious regulatory consequences, including licence suspension or revocation.
