Employment: The Justification of Unequal PayAs is evident, the law requires employers to pay men and women equally for similar work, work of equal value, or work valued as equivalent, however they are not required to justify the difference in pay if due to length of service. However, the recent Cadman and Wilson judgments have changed this, and the Court of Appeal has held that employers may be required to justify the use of a length of service criterion "as well as its adoption in the first place ".Article 141 of the EC Treaty, requires each member state of the European Union to ensure that both sexes receive equal pay for equal work. Article 141, implemented in Britain by the Equal Pay Act (EPA) 1970, strengthened the principle that men and women should receive equal pay. An employer who fails to comply with section 141 will be held liable for the pay disparity unless it can demonstrate under EPA section 1(3) that the pay difference is explained by something that has nothing to do with sex. If he can prove this, the request will be rejected. There appear to be some cases where length of service comes under the Genuine Material Factor heading to explain the difference in pay. In the Danfoss case it was held that the employer did not have to provide a special justification for using the length of service criterion. This is because length of service goes hand in hand with experience and since experience allows the employee to carry out his duties better, the employer is therefore free to reward it without having to establish the importance it has in carrying out of the specific tasks entrusted to the employee. ” (where is the start of this quote).2 Danfoss was followed by Cadman in 2006 who confirmed the above, however the…half of the paper…related pay". When lawyers in practice advise employers of employment, will warn them that they will find it more difficult to defend a claim for service-related pay in jobs where employees quickly learn the key skills required, and in these cases there is little or no evidence that longer service has an impact positive on performance. Additionally, employers will now be advised to review pay systems that reward seniority and assess whether they truly reflect experience-related performance improvements told them that they only need to exceed a lower threshold in order to require the employer to justify the existence of the service pay system and its adoption. This is because the test was simply a reasonable evidentiary requirement to ensure that the complaint in question had some prospect of success.