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.