We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

The Scope of Indirect Discrimination under Section 19 Equality Act 2010: No Reason Why

In Essop v Home Office and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice, the Supreme Court has handed down two important decisions on the scope of indirect discrimination.

Mr Essop and others were required to pass a skills assessment to be promoted.  Black and Minority Ethnic (‘BME’) and older candidates had lower pass rates than white and younger candidates.  They argued that the requirement to pass that skills assessment was indirectly discriminatory. 

Allowing Mr Essop’s appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision that the claimants had to show the reason why the provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) referred to in sections 19(2)(b) and (c) Equality Act 2010 put them at a particular disadvantage. Reviewing the legislation on indirect discrimination, the Court held that there had never been a requirement to explain the reason why a PCP put a particular group at a disadvantage.  It sufficed that it did.  In contrast to direct discrimination, indirect discrimination did not expressly require a causal link between the less favourable treatment and the protected characteristic. Instead, it required a causal link between the PCP and the disadvantage. The fact that some BME or older candidates could pass the test was irrelevant. The group was disadvantaged because the proportion of those who could pass was smaller than that of white or younger candidates. It was always open to a respondent to show the PCP was justified (paragraphs 23-30 of judgment). 

The disadvantage suffered by the individual must correspond with the disadvantage suffered by the group.  The disadvantage was that more BME or older candidates failed the test than white or younger candidates, and the claimants suffered the disadvantage.  By contrast, if a candidate failed because s/he had not prepared properly, s/he would not suffer harm as a result of the PCP in question. Further, it was open to a respondent to show that particular claimants had not been disadvantaged by the requirement, or to demonstrate that the requirement was justified (paras.  31-36).

Mr Naeem was a Muslim prison chaplain. The Prison Service pay scheme related pay to length of service. Average pay for Muslim chaplains was lower than that of Christian chaplains because Muslims had only been employed since 2002. In Naeem the PCP was the incremental pay scale.  The question was whether the PCP could be justified.  The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s factual finding that the pay differential was justified and dismissed Mr Naeem’s appeal. 

Barbara Zeitler / 26th Apr 2017


The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.

Download as PDF

Back to News