BBC Female Presenters Discrimination Claim Following Scam Recruitment Process To Be Heard in March 2025

BBC Female Presenters Discrimination Claim Following Scam Recruitment Process To Be Heard in March 2025
Photo Credits - Rich Smith via Unsplash

Four former BBC female presenters have initiated legal proceedings against the broadcaster, claiming sex and age discrimination. Martine Croxall, Karin Giannone, Kasia Madera and Annita McVeigh all claim they lost their jobs in a “sham recruitment exercise” following an organisational restructure. Whilst the hearing will take place next year, a preliminary tribunal ruled they couldn’t bring claims of equal pay.

Join us as we delve into the unfolding events. We’ll uncover why the preliminary hearing decided to halt their equal pay claims and revisit a notable BBC case from earlier times.

We hope you enjoy this fresh employment law scoop. Remember to hit that subscribe button for our newsletter so you’re always in the loop. It’s the easiest way to get the latest updates delivered straight to your inbox.

BBC Female Presenters Allegedly Lose Jobs in “Sham” Recruitment Process

Martine Croxall, Karin Giannone, Kasia Madera, and Annita McVeigh were former BBC female presenters, one of whom had been with the broadcaster since October 1991. Aged between 48 and 54, they were all invited to participate in a hiring process in 2023. This occurred after the organisation integrated its local and international news channels, which had been announced a year earlier.

Unfortunately, the BBC female presenters alleged that the recruitment process was a “sham” and that the “redundancies were not genuine” when they lost their jobs. They made these assertions after a whistleblower disclosed that the chosen chief presenters had been predetermined. 

READ: Female Worker Wins Sex Discrimination Claim Over Pretty Woman Comment

During the tribunal, it emerged that BBC executive Jess Brammar, then the editor of the broadcaster’s news channels, had guaranteed job security to specific candidates before the recruitment process even began. 

However, the women in the class action asserted they’d never received such assurances. What’s more, they claimed they were sidelined from on-air roles when they questioned the legitimacy of the process. Consequently, after losing their jobs, they initiated tribunal proceedings claiming age and sex discrimination, which will be heard next year.

Judgment Day: Equal Pay Eliminated

In addition to the claims of sex and age discrimination, the BBC female presenters wished to pursue equal pay claims. They alleged that colleagues such as Matthew Amroliwala, a male counterpart, had been paid more since February 2020. They further claimed that roughly £36,000 of annual pensionable salary had been missing since February 2023.

However, BBC lawyers argued the presenters were “seeking a second bite of the cherry on the same set of facts”. They cited the previous settlements reached between the women and the BBC regarding equal pay.

“The BBC grinds you down; it breaks you. You don’t feel like you can continue with it in the moment, and that’s why I’m here.” - Martine Croxall
Former BBC News Presenter.

At the hearing, Martine Croxall stated she wouldn’t have settled if she’d known it would bar her from pursuing future claims. She explained how she only agreed to the previous settlements because “the BBC grinds you down”. 

Yet employment tribunal judge Sarah Goodman dismissed the equal pay claims due to the settlements previously agreed to. Subsequently, someone from the BBC said, “We are pleased with the result and that the tribunal has accepted our position”.

A Case of Déjà Vu?

The claims involving the BBC female presenters mark another instance of the broadcaster finding itself in trouble in recent years. Back in 2020, presenter Samira Ahmed successfully argued the BBC had underpaid her by £700,000 due to sex discrimination.

While hosting Newswatch, she claimed Jeremy Vine was paid more despite being her comparator. The BBC attempted to justify this underpayment, claiming the two undertook “very different roles”, but the tribunal dismissed this.

READ: Automate Time-Wasting Tasks To Allow Four-Day Workweek Benefits to Shine, Expert Suggests

They explained that Samira Ahmed’s and Jeremy Vine’s roles were comparable. Moreover, they ruled that the BBC had failed to justify the wage disparity, ultimately labelling it as sex discrimination.

Still, these high-profile cases don’t seem to be alone. According to the BBC, they’ve forked out over £1m in legal costs to cover equal pay and race discrimination claims raised by their employees. Thus, as we await the hearing for the BBC female presenters, who knows what other revelations could come to light?

To ensure you don’t miss any subsequent updates, sign up for our newsletter today! We post the latest news from the employment law sector and could have more insights as this case unfolds. Subscribing now sends daily notifications to your inbox, making sure you never miss our breaking news.

If you’re facing any employment law concerns, reach out to Redmans Solicitors now. With years of expertise in the field, they can address your queries and provide guidance. If you have an eligible case, they can support you through the legal process to ensure you navigate it effectively.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here