Indirect Discrimination in UK Law
-
Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency)
“
Direct discrimination expressly requires a causal link between the less favourable treatment and the protected characteristic. It is dealing with hidden barriers which are not easy to anticipate or to spot.
-
James v Eastleigh Borough Council
“
This is because, as I see it, cases of direct discrimination under section 1(1)( a) can be considered by asking the simple question: would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?
-
Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and another v Homer
“
It was intended to do away with the complexities involved in identifying those who could comply and those who could not and how great the disparity had to be. Now all that is needed is a particular disadvantage when compared with other people who do not share the characteristic in question. It was not intended to lead us to ignore the fact that certain protected characteristics are more likely to be associated with particular disadvantages.
-
Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
“
It seems clear from Stec, however, that the normally strict test for justification of sex discrimination in the enjoyment of the Convention rights gives way to the "manifestly without reasonable foundation" test in the context of state benefits. The same principles were applied to the sex discrimination involved in denying widow's pensions to men in Runkee v United Kingdom [2007] 2 FCR 178, para 36.
-
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
“
Save in obvious cases, answering the crucial question will call for some consideration of the mental processes of the alleged discriminator. Treatment, favourable or unfavourable, is a consequence which follows from a decision. Direct evidence of a decision to discriminate on racial grounds will seldom be forthcoming. Usually the grounds of the decision will have to be deduced, or inferred, from the surrounding circumstances.
The crucial question just mentioned is to be distinguished sharply from a second and different question: if the discriminator treated the complainant less favourably on racial grounds, why did he do so? Racial discrimination is not negatived by the discriminator's motive or intention or reason or purpose (the words are interchangeable in this context) in treating another person less favourably on racial grounds.
-
Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board
“
This provision has the effect of prohibiting indirect discrimination between women and men. Further, there would not appear to be any material distinction in principle between the need to demonstrate objectively justified grounds of difference for purposes of section 1(3) and the need to justify a requirement or condition under section 1(1)( b)(ii) of the Act of 1975.
-
Equality Act 2010
... ... and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable ... 19: Indirect discrimination ... (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if ... ...
- Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001
-
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
... ... (2) In these Regulations, references to discrimination are to any discrimination falling within regulation 3 (discrimination on ... of any person who will be treated more favourably in direct or indirect consequence of the discrimination,as are conferred by or in respect of a ... ...
-
Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
... ... ” means a person making a complaint that unlawful discrimination has been committed against him; ... “complaint” means a complaint of ... the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion) ... ...
-
Indirect Discrimination Law in the EC; Appearance Rather than Reality?
It would not be an overstatement to suggest that the principle of equality constitutes a cornerstone of European Community Law. The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality, enshri...
-
Indirect discrimination and substantive equality in Nitisha: Easier said than done under Indian constitutional jurisprudence
This note analyses the recent landmark case of Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, dated 25 March 2021, where the Supreme Court of India formally recognised the concept of indirect discrimination unde...
-
Justifying Indirect Discrimination in English and American Law: How Stringent Should the Test Be?
Because British anti-discrimination legislation is significantly based on the American precedent contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, it is instructive to compare judicial developme...
-
Personal Religious Beliefs in the Workplace: How Not to Define Indirect Discrimination
In cases concerning indirect religious discrimination the claimant must demonstrate that an otherwise neutral measure has caused her to suffer a particular disadvantage because of her religion. In ...
- Indirect Discrimination
-
Supreme Court Rules on Indirect Discrimination Test
In the joint cases of Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27, the U.K. Supreme Court examined the test for establishing indirect...
-
Indirect Discrimination in the UK – What must a Claimant Prove?
The Supreme Court in the UK has given its decision in the conjoined cases of Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice, concerning indirect discrimination. ...
-
Supreme Court rules in two indirect discrimination cases
For a claimant to prove indirect discrimination, he or she has to show that there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts him or her (and others who share the protected characteristic) at ...