The Supreme Court has given a clear explanation of how the test for indirect discrimination works, holding that it is not necessary to know why a particular group is disadvantaged by an employer’s policy in order to show indirect discrimination. This decision is not particularly helpful for employers as it makes it easier for individuals to make an indirect discrimination claim. However, the Supreme Court emphasised that it is always open to an employer to show that indirect discrimination is justified. |
Case Reports |
2017/27 Supreme Court clarifies indirect discrimination test (UK) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2017 |
Keywords | General discrimination, Indirect discrimination |
Authors | Soyoung Lee |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Case Reports |
2016/24 Claimant required to show the ‘reason why’ the underlying reason behind a practice was indirectly discriminatory (UK) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 2 2016 |
Keywords | Race discrimination, Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, Indirect discrimination, Underlying reason for PCP |
Authors | Anna Bond |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The Court of Appeal (‘CoA’) has held that there was no indirect discrimination where the underlying reason behind a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (‘PCP’) operated by an employer was not discriminatory. The claim of indirect discrimination was brought by Mr Naeem, who is employed by the Prison Service as a full-time imam at HMP Bullingdon. Until 2002, the Prison Service employed only Christian chaplains full-time due to a lack of demand for chaplains of other faiths (who were employed on a sessional basis only). From 2002, it started to hire full-time Muslim as well as Christian chaplains due to an increase in the number of Muslim prisoners. |