Samira Ahmed’s historic victory over the BBC is a watershed moment for gender equality

The broadcaster’s arguments as to why Jeremy Vine was paid more than Samira Ahmed were rightly dismissed as nonsense. Other employers failing to pay their people properly should consider themselves warned

The presenter is due some £700,000 in back pay; no doubt other, similar cases will follow

While not quite binding in case law, Samira Ahmed‘s successful equal pay claim against the BBC sets an important precedent, morally and politically. It will make subsequent cases brought under the equalities legislation easier to win, and will radically alter pay structures. It is an historic moment.

Ms Ahmed always had a strong case, legally and morally, and the employment tribunal was right to decide in her favour. It was a straightforward example of unfair discrimination according to the law, and as the judges found, she was grossly underpaid for work of equal value compared with a male comparator, Jeremy Vine.

It did not matter, it seems, that Mr Vine is more famous than Ms Ahmed – the defining characteristic is the nature of the job, not market forces, which, in this area as in others, appear to be working patriarchally.

Now Ms Ahmed is due some £700,000 in back pay; no doubt other, similar cases will follow. The BBC would be well advised to settle them before they come to tribunal.

This will no doubt add to the financial pressures on the corporation at a time when it is undergoing something of a crisis over the funding of free TV licences for the over-75s. The BBC also faces more bruising encounters as the 2020s wear on and the government prepares to negotiate a fresh charter – to say nothing of formidable competitive challenges from the likes of Netflix.

Nonetheless, it has to be said that had the BBC paid its male and female workers the same money for the same work – and at generally lower levels than currently prevail for the male “talent” – the shock would not be so great. Indeed, the same applies to every organisation that has neglected its duty to reward its female workers appropriately.

A decade on from the 2010 Equality Act, the ambition and clarity of its provisions mean it will continue to drive gender equality forward. It is no excuse for an employer to say that a job is not the same as another job because, as the act puts it, it is “nevertheless equal in terms of the demands made by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making”.

The scope of the law was deliberately made wide, and markedly more so than the 1970 and 1975 acts. Thus, now that the law has been tested, many other occupations and employers will be obliged to treat men and women more fairly.

As The Independent has recently revealed, some stark disparities in pay persist despite efforts to address the problem, including ever-tougher laws. That female GPs earn £40,000 less than their male counterparts is impossible to justify, and it demonstrates that the gender pay gap, and the scandal of unequal rewards, is not confined to any stratum or type of worker.

The BBC’s argument that the programme fronted by Mr Vine required a “cheeky” presenter with a “glint in the eye” was dismissed as the legal irrelevances it clearly is. The judges were forthright: “Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes, he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that.”

It might be asked why Mr Vine was himself rewarded quite so lavishly for his efforts, but in any case he was richly rewarded compared with Ms Ahmed, whether or not she had a glint in her eye. The BBC got it wrong – and many other employers will now have to look again at their pay policies. It is long overdue.

With characteristic self-effacement, Ms Ahmed says she wants to get back to her broadcast journalism and no longer wishes to be “the story” herself. Yet she has made her mark in an historic fashion. She refused to accept the status quo, and must have been nervous about taking on her employer, and with all the resources it could bring to bear on a case such as this. Ms Ahmed has made the headlines, and for all the right reasons.