No right to disclosure of colleagues’ individual salaries, but initial indications regarding the Pay Transparency Directive

In principle, an employee may base an equal pay claim on a comparison with a single, better-paid person of the opposite sex. The Federal Labour Court recently made this explicitly clear (BAG, 23 October 2025 – 8 AZR 300/24; we reported on this in the December 2025 issue). However, this does not mean that employees are also entitled to have the specific salaries of individual colleagues disclosed. It is precisely here that the Cologne Regional Labour Court draws a practical distinction: a pair comparison may give rise to a presumption of discrimination if the relevant comparative data is already known. However, it does not confer a general right to demand information from the employer.

Facts of the case

A sales representative suspected that she was being paid less than her male colleagues. As she did not know the specific remuneration figures of the colleagues she had identified as comparators, she demanded information on their full remuneration components, including fixed salary, variable pay and company car. The employer refused to disclose the individual remuneration data, citing, amongst other things, data protection regulations. The employee subsequently asserted claims for information, payment and compensation on the grounds of alleged gender-based discrimination.

The decision

The Cologne Regional Labour Court dismissed the claim. In the court’s view, there was no right to information under the Pay Transparency Act (“Entgelttransparenzgesetz”), nor did such a right arise directly from EU law. The decisive factor was that the employee was not merely requesting average or median figures, but rather details of the specific remuneration of individual colleagues. The court clarified that the protection of personal pay data may still be at risk even when presented in anonymised form if it remains possible to identify specific individuals. The Regional Labour Court also found that a right to information under the Pay Transparency Act applies only to a single calendar year and does not extend indefinitely into the past.

The decision is consistent with the Federal Labour Court’s case law on pair comparisons. The Federal Labour Court had ruled that an equal pay claim may be based on a single comparator if that person performs the same or equivalent work, is paid more, and their pay is known.

According to the Cologne Regional Labour Court, where specific pay differences are known, a pair comparison may therefore suffice to give rise to a presumption of discrimination. However, this does not give rise to a claim against the employer for the disclosure of individual pay components of specific colleagues if the pay in question is not known.

The Regional Labour Court’s comments on the Pay Transparency Directive (EU) 2023/970 are also of particular interest. The court emphasised that the Directive itself merely provides for information on average pay levels and gender-based pay gaps, but not for the disclosure of individual employees’ salaries. At the same time, the court noted that the Directive could not yet be considered to have direct effect, at least at the time of the decision, as the transposition period had not yet expired.

Implications for practice

For companies, the decision is significant because it provides practical guidance on the Federal Labour Court’s case law regarding pair comparisons. According to the Federal Labour Court’s line of reasoning, companies face a significant risk if a female employee can name a specific, better-paid male comparator who performs the same or equivalent work. In such a case, even a single comparison may be sufficient to trigger a presumption of gender-based pay discrimination.

However, the ‘pair comparison’ is not a licence to pry into individual salaries. Employees may only refer to a specific comparator if they are aware of that person’s higher pay.

At the same time, however, this ruling does not mean the all-clear has been given. The Cologne Regional Labour Court also bases its rejection on the legal situation at the time. It states that direct application of the Directive was not yet an option. However, the deadline for transposing the Directive expired on 7 June 2026. We examined whether and to what extent direct application might be possible in a client briefing in February 2026. For employers, a legal transition period characterised by considerable uncertainty remains in place. In particular, unlike the German Pay Transparency Act, the Pay Transparency Directive does not provide for a fixed time limit of one calendar year on the right to information.

In future, rights to information, average figures, pay reports and procedural relaxations of the burden of proof will play a significantly greater role. Whilst the protection of personal data remains a strong argument against the disclosure of individual salaries, employers will nevertheless have to explain the objective, gender-neutral criteria on which pay differences are based.

Practical tip

Employers should use this time to prepare their remuneration structures and job evaluations to meet the requirements of the Pay Transparency Directive. Clear criteria for the evaluation of job roles and robust documentation of competence requirements, scope of responsibility and working conditions are particularly important, as these considerations were also significant for the Cologne Regional Labour Court. In future, this information will become significantly more important not only for transparency obligations but also for defending against equal pay claims.

Companies should therefore not wait until they receive requests for information or face legal action, but should structure their remuneration framework now in such a way that it remains sound even under the stricter rules on transparency and the burden of proof.