Facts
[K.], a legally trained professional, was hired in 1978 by Office X., a private law association subsidized by the Confederation, as a collaborator in the "Promotion of Foreign Trade" department. Despite her good performance, [K.] observed significant wage disparities between herself and her male colleagues in similar positions. In 1993, [K.] filed a request for future evidence to establish these discriminations. An expert concluded that there was a wage discrimination against K. In 1994, [K.] filed an action against X. before the Civil Court of the Vaud Cantonal Tribunal, which ultimately rejected her claims in 1998. [K.] then appealed to the Federal Tribunal.Considerations
3. The Federal Tribunal considers that the cantonal court has disregarded the requirements of Art. 6 of the Equality Act (LEg). When a worker makes it plausible that there is gender-based wage discrimination, the burden of proof is reversed, and the employer must establish the absence of any discrimination. The cantonal court was therefore wrong to require that the discrimination be proven. 4. The prohibition of any discrimination based on the sex of workers is an absolute principle that cannot be set aside by the fact that the employer would also discriminate between men or between women. 5. The cantonal court also misunderstood the notion of an objective reason that could justify a wage disparity. The fact that [K.] was hired young without experience is not enough, as the employer must demonstrate the concrete role played by experience in the performance of the…