A couple of years ago, I advised a high-flying professional who was being subject to overt sex discrimination at work.

She was told not to use her married name at work, on the basis that a switch from using her maiden name would demonstrate a lack of commitment to her job.

It also transpired that the rest of her team had run a sweep stake on how soon she would leave work (to have children, etc) after marrying. Fed up with this nonsense, she consequently resigned and there followed a substantial out of court settlement in her favour.

However, most female clients for whom I act cannot point to such concrete evidence; the same can be said of other disadvantaged groups who find themselves discriminated against at the point of recruitment or dismissal, or who simply find they are being paid less than their colleagues.

Discrimination is more covert these days and the burden of proof in most cases initially lies on the claimant to show wrongdoing — a high hurdle to overcome.

It is therefore little wonder that in 2007, despite all our anti-discrimination legislation, employment and pay gaps between disadvantaged groups and the population at large continue unabated.

Women working full-time are still paid on average 17 per cent per cent less an hour than men (38 per cent less if they work part-time) more than 30 years after the Equal Pay Act was introduced. It is estimated that 57 per cent of working women are in jobs below their skill and qualification levels — so not only are they underpaid, they are being passed over for promotion also.

Ethnic minorities do not fare much better. Being underpaid is an issue here too. In April, a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report showed that male ethnic minority professionals earn up to 25 per cent less than their white counterparts.

But securing employment in the first place is still a struggle — the employment gap between ethnic minorities and everyone else stubbornly remains around the 15 per cent mark. This is before looking at the situation of those with disabilities and others.

So if the moral and the legal arguments are failing to bring an end to these disparities, what are we to do next? Step forward Committed 2 Equality (C2E), the leading employment diversity consultancy. Today they have published a report that shows there are strong financial incentives for business to adopt fair employment practices.

C2E has calculated that in the last 12 months unfair and discriminatory practices cost UK employers £1.7bn, in terms of the costs associated with subsequent employee complaints — that’s almost £1million every working hour.

Though discrimination claims are hard to find, it has not deterred claimants — the number of equal pay claims is up 155 per cent and the claims cost money to defend. In addition C2E can point to a range of clients for whom they have worked who have seen profitability noticeably increase with increased diversity in their work places.

Painful as it is that morality and respect for the law have proved insufficient to encourage employers to increase diversity and treat employees equally, we need to put this debate much more strongly in terms they do understand — we need to explain the cash savings and benefits of treating people properly; we need to talk money.

Guardian