14/08/2026
Written by Tijen Ahmet and Gulsom Gohar.
The Employment Tribunal's decision in Mrs G Gharabli v Cedar Hope Care Services Ltd (2026) serves as a valuable reminder that compliance with immigration rules does not automatically protect employers from discrimination claims. This case highlights the risks associated with disparity in pay - paying sponsored workers more than comparable non-sponsored employees without adequate justification.
Case summary
Mrs Gharabli was employed by Cedar Hope Care Services as a Support Worker and later as a Senior Support Worker. During her employment, she discovered that colleagues sponsored under the Skilled Worker visa route were paid a higher hourly rate than domestic workers performing substantially the same role. The employer argued that the higher pay reflected Home Office minimum salary requirements for sponsorship visa holders.
Mrs Gharabli brought claims including indirect race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The Tribunal dismissed several of her claims but upheld the indirect race discrimination and whistleblowing complaints. In considering the discrimination claim, the Tribunal accepted that compliance with immigration salary requirements could constitute a legitimate aim. However, it found that Cedar Hope Care Services had failed to demonstrate that paying sponsored workers more than non-sponsored workers was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The employer was unable to provide sufficient evidence that less discriminatory alternatives had been considered or that increasing the pay of domestic workers was not feasible. The Tribunal ultimately awarded compensation for injury to feelings, financial losses and interest.
Key takeaways for employers
The Tribunal’s decision highlights important considerations for employers.
- Immigration compliance does not override Equality law
Employers may need to pay sponsored workers at rates required by immigration rules, but this does not automatically justify lower pay for domestic employees carrying out equivalent work. Any disparity must still withstand scrutiny under the Equality Act 2010.
- Objective justification requires evidence
Where a policy creates a disadvantage linked to a protected characteristic, employers must demonstrate that it is both necessary and proportionate. Assertions alone will not be enough. Financial, operational and workforce evidence may be required.
- Review pay structures regularly
Organisations employing sponsored and non-sponsored workers should review their pay arrangements to identify any potential discrimination risks, particularly where employees perform the same or similar roles.
- Respond to employees appropriately
The Tribunal's finding on whistleblowing detriment underlines the importance of responding appropriately when employees raise concerns about workplace practices, including pay inequality.
The decision reinforces the importance of carefully managing immigration-related employment decisions. It is particularly relevant for employers in sectors heavily reliant on sponsored workers, such as social care, healthcare and hospitality. In today’s immigration landscape, sponsorship salary thresholds continue to influence pay structures so employers should ensure that where there are any differences in pay, it can be clearly justified and documented. It is recommended that employers proactively review remuneration policies to help reduce the risk of discrimination and whistleblowing claims while maintaining compliance with both immigration and employment law.
If you would like to discuss how this Tribunal decision may affect your organisation or workforce, contact our Immigration team.
Stay informed across policy, practice, and delivery — follow our LinkedIn page.
