Indirect discrimination meaning

The EAT ruled on 31 July 2025 that the government was not responsible for indirect discrimination against Louise Askester and 126 other care home employees simply for having published guidance on who could be excused from the jab, because that guidance did not exceed what statute demanded. Auerbach HHJ observed that, given its balanced and accurate statement of the law, and the consistent emphasis on advising employers about what was required to ensure compliance with the law, it was not realistically arguable that a tribunal could properly judge it fair, reasonable or just to hold the Secretary of State or the Department of Health and Social Care to account. In 2021, fresh UK rules mandated vaccination against COVID-19, for care home staff, save where a medical exemption applied under the relevant regulations at the time...

Fasano v (1) Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc (2) Reckitt Benckiser Health Ltd [2024] EAT 7 What are the practical implications of this judgment? This decision makes plain that EqA 2010, s 109 allows no room for a ‘purposive’ interpretation, even where that leads to the undesirable result that a claimant has no remedy for discriminatory treatment. The EAT affirmed the employment tribunal’s rejection of an indirect age discrimination claim brought by a retired employee who was denied payment under a long-term incentive plan (LTIP) after the employer’s parent company changed the rules to promote staff retention. That said, the EAT found the tribunal’s approach to agency under EqA 2010, s 109 to be perverse and unsustainable. On orthodox common law principles, there was no sound footing for the tribunal’s conclusion that the parent company was acting as the employer’s agent so as to fix the employer with liability...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Employment contract Tax Prohibited conduct protection at work Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Diversity and gender pay gap Maternity, parents and carers Individual rights arising from trade union membership Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Unfair dismissal Settlement Employment tribunals Employment Appeal Tribunal Immigration LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Horizon scanning The PM’s Office confirms the State Opening of Parliament, together with the King’s Speech, will occur on 17 July 2024. The new Parliament is summoned for 9 July 2024 to choose the Speaker and administer oaths to members. See: LNB News 30/05/2024 60. Employment contract Heathrow Express has not succeeded in its appeal concerning lifelong rail perks. In Adekoya v Heathrow Express Operating Co Ltd [2024] EAT 72, the EAT found the company must again defend breach of contract...

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 outlines the matters an employer must weigh up when obtaining medical assessment reports for their staff and prospective recruits...

This Practice Note outlines the available resources concerning safeguards and liabilities arising from acts or failures to act that constitute sexual orientation discrimination, or other forms of prohibited conduct linked to sexual orientation. The detail here is intentionally limited, as the principal aim is to point subscribers towards comprehensive materials contained in additional Practice Notes that explore each element in depth. Consequently, treat this Practice Note as an entry point for research; full coverage is provided only in the places signposted below. Its role is to point you forward, not to replace the comprehensive Practice Notes that address each strand of the topic at length, and the links below are where complete information is intended to be consulted and used. The characteristics protected The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) affords protection against discrimination and other prohibited conduct connected to particular listed characteristics a person may have. Some protections apply solely to one such characteristic. Others operate uniformly across all of them, which together are described as ‘the protected...

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 6.1 of response form ET3: ] It is acknowledged that the Respondent maintains a policy or practice under which it expects candidates for roles within [ specify department ] to evidence, during interview, an adequate command of computing skills...

[ 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...