Direct discrimination meaning

In this edition: Employment contract Pay Protected characteristics Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Prohibited conduct protection at work Equality of terms (equal pay) Employment Appeal Tribunal Governance and regulatory Immigration Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Employment contract UKSC upholds claimants’ appeal and restores injunction in Tesco ‘fire and rehire’ case In Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) [2024] UKSC 28, Tesco moved to end employees’ contracts to remove their ‘retained pay’—a contractual financial entitlement accepted as permanent—and to offer re-engagement on new terms excluding that pay. Working with the union, USDAW, several employees obtained a High Court injunction restraining Tesco from dismissing them in order to take away the retained pay entitlement. The Court of Appeal, however, allowed Tesco’s appeal against that order. The Supreme Court has since backed the claimants’ appeal and...

Eddie Stobart v Graham [2025] EAT 14 What are the practical implication of this case? This ruling offers guidance in practice to parties on how discrimination experienced links to the extent of injury, and on the evidence needed to place an award within a Vento band where proof of harm is thin. It clarifies the connection between the treatment endured and the likely severity of impact, assisting tribunals when evidence of injury is sparse. The EAT analysed how the claimant’s discriminatory treatment may indicate the level of injury suffered. Clarke J observed that overt discrimination, and conduct acted out before colleagues, is liable to inflict greater harm and better justify an inference of serious damage. He then identified four matters a claimant ought to address when presenting evidence to a tribunal about the harm they have sustained. This decision will give Employment Tribunal (ET) judges firmer guidance on the evidence to consider when fixing awards within the Vento bands, together with pointers on the gravity of those...

In this issue: Tax Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Employment rights and trade unions Employment Appeal Tribunal Civil Courts and alternative dispute resolution Immigration IRLR Highlights—October 2024 Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Tax Mutuality and control were held sufficient to support employment status for referees’ engagements, yet the Supreme Court sent the point back to the FTT. In Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29, the Court dismissed PGMOL’s appeal. It found that the core prerequisites—mutuality of obligation and control—necessary for a contract of employment were present. Even so, it remitted the case to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) to decide, on its original factual findings, whether, viewed in the round, the individual match contracts were in fact contracts of employment...

Justification—the ‘justification defence’ This Practice Note explores the concept of justification—often termed the ‘justification defence’—within discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It addresses what may amount to a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It assesses proportionality in cases of indirect discrimination (EqA 2010, s 19(2)(d)), including where the objective is to prevent discrimination linked to other protected characteristics. It reviews the notion of a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and considers issues arising in relation to direct and indirect age discrimination (EqA 2010, s 13(2)) and the Heyday case. In doing so, it evaluates objective justification, defence (no discrimination), the burden of proof, the approach a tribunal should adopt, and circumstances where discrimination rights come into conflict. This Practice Note includes references to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. Domestic measures enacted to fulfil UK obligations under...

This Practice Note contains guidance on assessing the risk of your organisation causing or contributing to an adverse human rights impact Human rights due diligence and risk assessment are not presently mandated by UK law; however, they remain a core element of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Adopting these practices is also sound business sense, helping to safeguard an organisation against operational and reputational risks linked to causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts. In addition, particular facets of the responsibility to respect human rights may already be required by domestic legislation, such as health and safety, non-discrimination, or environmental laws. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/1760 (CSDDD), further introduces compulsory human rights and environmental due diligence obligations for the largest companies within the European Union and, in some instances, for those operating outside it...

This Practice Note includes references to case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. For guidance on whether EU judgments are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law. The equal pay principle and pensions In its judgment in the Barber case delivered on 17 May 1990, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that pensions payable under a private occupational pension scheme constitute deferred remuneration. Accordingly, the right to equal pay in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (the predecessor to Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) extends to the element of a person’s remuneration made up of pension benefits in the same way as to any other part of their pay. The Court in Barber also concluded that the equal pay right has direct effect in relation to occupational pension schemes, and that it falls to the national courts to protect the rights that this provision confers on...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] The Respondent engaged the Claimant as a [ job title ]. She was based at the Respondent’s premises at [ insert address ], where she was one of only three women employed. [ It was an implied term of the Claimant’s employment contract that the Respondent would not behave in a way calculated or likely to erode the mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee. ] The Claimant contends that the Respondent subjected her to [ a course of ] discrimination, sex-related harassment, harassment of a sexual nature, and victimisation, which encompassed discriminatory and constructive unfair dismissal. On or around [ insert date ], her colleague, [ insert name ], asked her to send him certain sales reports. She informed [ insert name ] that she was in the process of compiling the figures and would supply the full report after lunch. He replied, ‘No need to bite my head off. Is it that...

Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: The Claimant served with the Respondent as a [ insert job title, eg ‘paralegal and then as a trainee solicitor’ ] commencing on [ insert start date of employment, eg 6 September 2021 ] and continuing until [ his OR her OR their dismissal on [ insert date, eg 31 March 2024 ] ]. The Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg ‘an international law firm’ ]... [ The Claimant alleges that the Respondent subjected [ her OR him OR them ] to [ a course of ] discrimination, harassment and victimisation, which encompassed [ his OR her OR their ] discriminatory and unfair dismissal. ]... Disability The Claimant lives with [ insert details, eg ‘clinical depression and severe dyslexia’ ] and was, throughout the relevant period, a disabled person [ owing to each of these impairments ] for the purposes of section 6(1) of the...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of form ET1: ] The Claimant has worked continuously for the Respondent from [ insert date ] in the capacity of sales executive. He is a gay man. Around [ insert date ], the Claimant advanced to the position of area representative. At that point Mr A became his line manager. The Claimant quickly perceived that Mr A was markedly less amicable towards him than towards the other area representatives and that he was omitted from team social gatherings [ insert details ]. He found this pattern persistent. On one occasion, the Claimant observed an email from Mr A addressed to another team member, which had been circulated to all the others in the team, inviting them to the pub. The email’s subject line stated ‘no fags’, which the Claimant understood to be directed at him. On or about [ insert date ], the Claimant learned that Mr A had organised a ‘family fun day’ for the team at a...