Guidance

Chapter 5 - Indirect discrimination

Published: 2 October 2024

Last updated: 2 October 2024

On this page

Pages in this guide

This is our updated Code of practice for services, public functions and associations. We are running a consultation on our updates and we need your feedback.

Go to our Code of practice consultation page to give feedback.

Introduction

5.1 This chapter explains indirect discrimination and 'objective justification'. Objective justification applies to indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, positive action and to some of the exceptions permitted by the Act (s.19).

5.2 Indirect discrimination applies to all the protected characteristics except pregnancy and maternity (though indirect sex discrimination may apply in some pregnancy and maternity situations).

5.3 Indirect discrimination refers to rules, practices, policies and other provisions which appear to apply to everybody in the same way but which in practice have a different impact on different groups of people.

What the Act says

5.4 Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider, person exercising a public function or an association applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage (s.19(1), 19(2)).

Example

5.5 An optician allows customers to pay for their glasses by instalments but restricts eligibility to people who have jobs. A 69-year-old woman, who is retired, points out that this puts older people, including her, at a disadvantage as they are less likely to be working. This is likely to be indirect age discrimination unless it can be justified.

5.6 Indirect discrimination can also now extend to those who do not share the same protected characteristic as the disadvantaged group, provided they experience substantially the same disadvantage as the group. This is known as ‘same disadvantage’ indirect discrimination.

5.7 This chapter will firstly consider ‘ordinary’ indirect discrimination (read paragraphs 5.8 to 5.58) (s.19) and then consider ‘same disadvantage’ indirect discrimination (read paragraphs 5.59 to 5.61) (s.19A).

5.8 In summary, for ‘ordinary’ indirect discrimination to take place, the following four requirements must be met (s.19).

  1. A provision, criterion or practice is applied equally: The service provider, person exercising a public function or association applies, or would apply, the provision, criterion or practice equally to everyone within the relevant group including a particular individual (read paragraphs 5.9 to 5.18).
  2. Using a comparative approach shows there is disadvantage (often referred to as the requirement to show ‘group disadvantage’): The provision, criterion or practice puts, or would put, people who share the individual’s relevant protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with people who do not have that characteristic (read paragraphs 5.19 to 5.41).
  3. There is individual disadvantage: The provision, criterion or practice puts, or would put, the individual at that disadvantage (read paragraphs 5.42 to 5.45).
  4. The provision criterion or practice cannot be justified: The service provider, person exercising a public function or association cannot show that the provision, criterion or practice is justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (read paragraphs 5.46 to 5.58).

A provision, criterion or practice is applied equally

What constitutes a provision, criterion or practice?

5.9 The first step in establishing indirect discrimination is to identify the relevant provision, criterion or practice (s.19(1)). The phrase ‘provision, criterion or practice’ is not defined by the Act but it should be interpreted widely to include, for example, any formal or informal policies, rules, practices, arrangements, criteria, conditions, prerequisites, qualifications or provisions. It is not necessary to specify whether something is a provision, criterion or practice, so long as the relevant policy, rule, practice or decision can be properly said to be one of, or a combination of, those three things [footnote 32].

5.10 A provision, criterion or practice may also include decisions to do something in the future, such as a policy or criterion that has not yet been applied. A ‘one-off’ or discretionary decision can also amount to a provision, criterion or practice if, to some extent, it reflects the way in which things generally are or will be done, or there is some element of repetition [footnote 33].

Example

5.11 A chain of shops is worried about security and instructs its staff to require people coming into the shop to remove any headgear. A security guard explains to a Rastafarian that it is the policy of the shop that he must remove his hat. Unless the shop can justify this policy, it will be indirect discrimination because of religion.

Is the provision, criterion, or practice a neutral one?

5.12 The provision, criterion or practice must be neutral on its face, which means that it cannot be about a specific protected characteristic or characteristics. If it is not neutral, and expressly applies to people with a specific protected characteristic, it is likely to amount to direct discrimination.

Example

5.13 A GP practice decides that it will not see Albanians as patients. This would be direct discrimination against a racial group.

Example

5.14 A bank requires evidence of a permanent residence before it allows an account to be opened. An asylum seeker attempts to open an account. The bank notes that the asylum seeker has no permanent residence and refuses the application. The requirement for a permanent residence is a neutral one but is likely to put individuals of certain nationalities at a particular disadvantage. As such this could be indirect race discrimination unless it can be justified.

What does 'would put' mean?

5.15 It is a requirement of the Act that the provision, criterion or practice puts or would put people who share the individual's protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, when compared with people who do not have that characteristic (s.19(2)(c)). The Act also requires that it puts or would put the particular individual at that disadvantage. This allows challenges to provisions, criteria or practices which have not yet been applied, but which would have a discriminatory effect if they were.

5.16 However, for a claim of indirect discrimination to succeed, the individual must show that they would experience a disadvantage if the provision, criterion or practice was applied to them (read also paragraph 5.42 and example 5.43).

Example

5.17 A local authority consults with residents on its proposed plans for building renovations. It announces renovations will be carried out on a block of flats, which means the ramped entrances will be closed during the works. As women are more likely to be the carers of young children, a woman points out that this plan will make it more difficult for women using a pushchair, including herself, to get in and out of the block. Although the work has not yet started, this will be indirect sex discrimination unless the council can justify its decision.

Example

5.18 A practising Jewish person wishes to join a yoga class held on a Wednesday evening, but the joining instructions state that all new members must first take part in a full day introductory session, which is only available on a Saturday. He is therefore deterred from joining the class because he observes the Jewish Sabbath. This will be indirect discrimination unless the policy can be justified. 

Disadvantage and the comparative approach

5.19 The second requirement in an indirect discrimination claim is to establish whether the provision, criterion or practice puts, or would put, an individual at a particular disadvantage when compared with others who do not share the individual’s protected characteristic. Although, for ease, we discuss disadvantage and the comparative approach separately below, it is important to note that these are not separate tests. The test is a holistic one: whether the individual experiences a particular disadvantage in comparison with persons who do not have that characteristic. In other words, the question is whether the individual experienced comparative disadvantage, not disadvantage in the abstract.

What is a disadvantage?

5.20 ‘Disadvantage’ is not defined by the Act. It could include denial of an opportunity or choice, deterrence, rejection or exclusion. The courts have found that ‘detriment’, a similar concept, is something that a reasonable person would complain about. An unjustified sense of grievance would not qualify. A disadvantage does not have to be quantifiable. It does not have to involve actual loss (economic or otherwise). It is enough that a person can reasonably say that they would have preferred to be treated differently.

Must the individual prove the reason for the disadvantage?

5.21 Indirect discrimination requires that there is a causal link between the provision, criterion or practice and the particular disadvantage experienced by the group and the individual [footnote 34]. The individual does not have to establish the reason why the provision, criterion or practice puts them or the group at that disadvantage. It is enough that it does [footnote 35].

Group and individual disadvantage

5.22 As explained in paragraph 5.15, the individual must show both that the provision, criterion or practice puts or would put people who share their protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage (‘group disadvantage’), and that it puts them personally at that disadvantage (‘individual disadvantage’).

Is the group put at a disadvantage?

5.23 Sometimes, a provision, criterion or practice is inherently likely to disadvantage a group with a particular protected characteristic. But there is no requirement that the provision, criterion or practice puts every member of the group at a disadvantage. It is a typical feature of indirect discrimination that some members of the group will not experience the particular disadvantage [footnote 36].

Example

5.24 When a local council holds its consultation meetings on a weekday evening, it discovers that fewer women than men attend. A woman complains that this is because some women, including herself, cannot come because of childcare responsibilities. Provided she can demonstrate that some women are or would be disadvantaged by the policy, she does not have to show that the absence of women is or would be attributable, in every case, to childcare responsibilities.

5.25 As explained above (read paragraph 5.21), there is no requirement to show why a provision, criterion or practice puts one group sharing a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage when compared with others. But it is necessary to demonstrate a causal link between the provision, criterion or practice and the particular disadvantage experienced. The essential question is whether the disadvantage is caused by the provision, criterion or practice. In some situations, the causal link between the provision, criterion or practice and the disadvantage might be obvious; for example, a dress code may create a disadvantage for individuals with particular religious beliefs. In other situations, it will be less obvious how the provision, criterion or practice puts or would put people sharing a protected characteristic at a disadvantage. In this case, statistics, expert evidence or personal testimony may help to demonstrate that a disadvantage exists. Read paragraphs 5.36 to 5.41 for more information about carrying out a formal comparative exercise.

Example

5.26 A gym imposes a fitness test which includes a requirement to be able to do 30 press-ups for people wanting to join. A 70-year-old man provides statistical evidence from a reputable source that people in his age group are unlikely to be able to do 30 press-ups as upper body strength decreases with age. If the gym cannot objectively justify the requirement, it will be unlawful.

The comparative approach

5.27 When considering a comparison between individuals with the protected characteristic and those without it (s.19(2)(b)), the circumstances of the two groups must be sufficiently similar for a comparison to be made and there must be no material differences in circumstances (s.23(1)).

5.28 It is important to be clear which protected characteristic is relevant. In the case of disability, this would not be all disabled people, but disabled people with a particular impairment, for example, an equivalent visual impairment. For race, it could be all Africans or only Somalis, for example.

Example

5.29 A nursing home has a policy to refuse care to anyone with sickle cell anaemia. This excludes a larger number of people from certain European ethnic groups and certain African ethnic groups but does not exclude all African ethnic groups. If the comparison is made between Africans and non-Africans, the court may mistakenly think that no particular disadvantage to the group is revealed. However, if the comparison is between those from the commonly affected ethnic groups and those who are not affected, the racial consequences of the policy will become apparent and the nursing home will have to justify it.

The 'pool for comparison'

5.30 The people used in the comparative exercise are usually referred to as the ‘pool for comparison’.

In general, the pool should consist of the group which the provision, criterion or practice affects, or would affect, either positively or negatively, while excluding people who are not affected by it, either positively or negatively. This means that identifying the provision, criterion or practice will usually also identify the pool for comparison [footnote 37]. In most situations, there is likely to be only one appropriate pool, but there may be circumstances where there is more than one. If this is the case, the court will decide which pool is most appropriate to use to realistically and effectively test the allegation of indirect discrimination being made [footnote 38].

Example

5.31 A local authority plans on introducing an information leaflet about its services for local residents. To save money, it does not produce an easy read version of the document. A person with a learning disability complains that because the leaflets are not available in accessible formats, he would not be able to access council services.

He complains that the policy of producing information leaflets without easy read versions places people with learning disabilities at a particular disadvantage, thereby indirectly discriminating against them. The pool within which the comparison is made is all those who might reasonably use the local authority’s services, rather than the national population, as most of the national population would have no interest in using the local authority’s services.

It should be noted that the local authority is also under a duty to make reasonable adjustments and so should have considered making the information available in an easy read format as a reasonable adjustment.

Example

5.32 A local authority provides information about its mobile library service by distributing leaflets to day centres. These are normally used by people aged over 65. A 55-year-old resident complains that the method of distribution indirectly discriminates against those under the age of 65. The pool for comparison is those living in the local authority’s area who may be interested in using the mobile library. It is not the national population or the population of the local authority in general.

Making the comparison

5.33 Looking at the pool, a comparison must then be made between the impact of the provision, criterion or practice on people without the relevant protected characteristic, and its impact on people with the protected characteristic.

5.34 Whether there is group disadvantage in a claim for indirect discrimination can be established in several ways.

For example:

  • there may be statistical or other evidence of disadvantage
  • group disadvantage may be inferred from the fact that there is a particular disadvantage in the individual case
  • the disadvantage may be inherent in the provision, criterion or practice in question
  • there may be relevant factors, such as the gender profile in regard to primary responsibility for child care, which the court will take into account [footnote 39]

5.35 The way that the comparison is carried out will depend on the circumstances, including the protected characteristic concerned (s.19(2)(c)). It may, in some circumstances, be necessary to carry out a formal comparative exercise using statistical evidence.

Carrying out a formal comparative exercise

5.36 Statistics can provide an insight into the link between the provision, criterion or practice and the disadvantage that it causes. It may also be possible to use national or regional statistics to demonstrate the nature and extent of the particular disadvantage.

5.37 However, a statistical analysis may not be appropriate or practicable, especially when there is inadequate or unreliable information, or the numbers of people are too small to allow for a statistically significant comparison. In this situation, the court may find it helpful for an expert to provide evidence on whether there is any disadvantage and, if so, the nature of it.

5.38 There are other instances where it may be useful to have evidence (including, if appropriate, from an expert) to help the court understand the nature of the protected characteristic or the behaviour of the group sharing the characteristic – for example, evidence about the principles of a particular religious belief.

Example

5.39 A person has a belief that pork renders them ritually unclean for the purposes of the rites of their religion for a certain time period. They have a medical condition requiring medication. They claim that their GP is indirectly discriminating against them by only prescribing generic label tablets which contain pork gelatine even though there are branded label tablets available which have the same active ingredients but which are free from pork products. The court would be assisted by evidence of the significance of this belief in the person’s religion to establish that prescribing generic label tablets containing pork gelatine amounted to a particular disadvantage.

5.40 Essentially, it needs to be established that the provision, criterion or practice puts a greater proportion of those with the relevant protected characteristic at a disadvantage, compared to the proportion of those without the protected characteristic who are disadvantaged. It needs to be shown that the group with the protected characteristic experiences a ‘particular disadvantage’ in comparison with others. Whether a difference is significant will depend on the context, such as the size of the pool and the actual numbers behind the proportions. As explained in paragraph 5.23, it is not necessary to show that all, or a majority of those within the pool who share the protected characteristic, are placed at a disadvantage.

Example

5.41 A local authority makes a hall available for residents' meetings for those living in the local authority ward. It is only made available on Friday evenings. Making the hall available on a Friday evening is a neutral practice. In an indirect discrimination claim, a court must carry out a comparative exercise to decide whether the policy puts, or would put, Jewish residents, for example, at a particular disadvantage, when compared with other religious groups.

  1. The court looks at the information on the religious make-up of the ‘pool’. 5,000 residents live in the ward. Of these, 1,000 state that they are of the Jewish religion, which is a protected characteristic. The proportion of the pool with the particular protected characteristic is one fifth.
  2. The court knows that most non-Jewish residents are unlikely to be prevented from using the hall on a Friday evening by their religious beliefs. Based on the information it has about residents’ religious beliefs, it estimates that most of the 4,000 non-Jewish residents will not be disadvantaged by this practice.
  3. However, at least 500 Jewish residents – those holding Orthodox beliefs – will be prevented by their religion from using the hall.
  4. Therefore, 50 per cent of Jewish residents will be disadvantaged by the practice.
  5. The court then compares the proportion of Jewish people who are disadvantaged by the practice (half of them) with the proportion of those who are disadvantaged but are not Jewish (very few). From this comparison, the court concludes that the group with the protected characteristic of being of the Jewish religion experiences a particular disadvantage, and recognises that the local authority must justify the practice or change it to avoid acting unlawfully. The local authority chooses to make the hall available on another evening instead of Friday.

Individual disadvantage

Is the individual concerned put at that disadvantage?

5.42 It is not enough that the provision, criterion or practice puts, or would put, a group of people who share a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. It must also have that effect (or be capable of having it) on the individual concerned. So, it is not enough for an individual merely to establish that they are a member of the relevant group. They must also show they have personally experienced (or could experience) the particular disadvantage as an individual (read paragraph 5.15 and paragraph 5.18). As with group disadvantage (read paragraph 5.21), the individual does not have to prove the reason for the disadvantage they personally experience; only that it results from the application of the provision, criterion or practice.

Example

5.43 A venue requires customers to go through a metal detector before entering. A Sikh complains that this policy indirectly discriminates against Sikhs by preventing them from wearing the Kara bracelet. However, he no longer observes this article of the Sikh faith. He is therefore not put at a particular disadvantage. He could not successfully bring a claim for indirect discrimination. 

The intention behind the provision, criterion or practice is irrelevant

5.44 Indirect discrimination is unlawful, even where the discriminatory effect of the provision, criterion or practice is not intentional, unless it can be objectively justified. If a service provider, person exercising a public function or association applies the provision, criterion or practice without the intention of discriminating against the individual, the court may decide not to order a payment of compensation (read Chapter 14 on Enforcement) (s.119(5) and (6)).

Example

5.45 A provider of legal services creates a website to enable the public to easily access its services. However, the website has all its text embedded within graphics. Although it did not intend to discriminate indirectly against those with a visual impairment, this places those with a visual impairment at a particular disadvantage because they cannot change the font size or apply text-to-speech recognition software and so cannot access the website. As well as giving rise to an obligation to make a reasonable adjustment to their website, this practice will be indirect disability discrimination unless the provider can justify it.

Objective Justification

When can a provision, criterion or practice be objectively justified?

5.46 If the person applying the provision, criterion or practice can show that it is ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, then it will not amount to indirect discrimination (s.19(2)(d)). This is often known as the ‘objective justification’ test. The test applies to ‘same disadvantage’ indirect discrimination also (read paragraphs 5.59 to 5.61) and to other areas of discrimination law, for example, discrimination arising from disability.

5.47 If challenged in the courts, it is for the service provider, person exercising a public function or association to justify the provision, criterion or practice and to produce evidence to support their assertion that it is justified. Generalisations will not be sufficient to provide justification. It is not necessary for the justification to have been fully set out at the time the provision, criterion or practice was applied. If challenged, the service provider, person exercising a public function or association can set out the justification to the court.

5.48 The question of whether the provision, criterion or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim should be approached in stages:

  1. Is the aim of the provision, criterion or practice legal and non-discriminatory, and one that represents a real, objective consideration?
  2. If the aim is legitimate, is the means of achieving it proportionate?

What is a legitimate aim?

5.49 The concept of a ‘legitimate aim’ is not defined by the Act. However, caselaw has established that to be legitimate, the aim of the provision, criterion or practice should be legal, should not be discriminatory in itself, and it must represent a real, objective consideration.

5.50 Although reasonable business needs and economic efficiency may be legitimate aims, a service provider, person exercising a public function or association solely aiming to reduce costs cannot expect to satisfy the test [footnote 40]. For example, they cannot simply argue that to discriminate is cheaper than not to discriminate.

5.51 Examples of legitimate aims include:

  • ensuring that services and benefits are targeted at those who most need them
  • the fair exercise of powers
  • ensuring health and safety, for example, the health and safety of those using a service or accessing a public function, provided risks are clearly specified
  • preventing fraud or other forms of abuse and / or inappropriate use of services or public functions
  • ensuring the wellbeing or dignity of members of an association or of people using a service or accessing a public function

What is proportionate?

5.52 Even if the aim is a legitimate one, the means of achieving it must be proportionate.

5.53 Proportionality requires a balancing exercise between the aim sought to be achieved and the discriminatory effect it may have. The disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.

The courts have broken this down into a four stage test. For a measure to be proportionate [footnote 41]:

  1. The aim must be sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right.
  2. The measure must be rationally connected to the aim being pursued. This means its implementation can reasonably be expected to contribute towards the achievement of that aim [footnote 42].
  3. The means chosen must be no more than necessary to accomplish the aim. The court will consider whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the aim.
  4. The impact of the rights infringement must be proportionate to the likely benefit of the measure.

5.54 The greater financial cost of using a less discriminatory approach cannot, by itself, provide a justification for applying a particular provision, criterion or practice [footnote 43]. Cost can only be considered as part of the service provider, person exercising a public function or association’s justification, if there are other good reasons for adopting it.

Example

5.55 An outdoor centre provides a variety of activities, from walks on gravelled areas to those involving strenuous physical effort. On safety grounds, it requires a medical certificate of good health for all participants in any activity they offer, even if they might not be considered strenuous. This policy has the effect of excluding many disabled people from the centre. Although ensuring health and safety is a legitimate aim, the blanket application of the policy is likely to be unjustified because it may exclude disabled people who have conditions which doctors may not classify as ‘good health’ but would not, in practice, prevent them from safely undertaking both the strenuous and less strenuous activities. Therefore, the certificate of good health would not be a justifiable way of achieving the legitimate aim.

5.56 In a case involving disability, if the service provider, person exercising a public function or association has not complied with their duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for them to show that the treatment was proportionate.

5.57 The more serious the disadvantage caused by the discriminatory provision, criterion or practice, the more convincing the objective justification must be.

Example

5.58 A British citizen is not eligible for an ex-gratia scheme payment to people interned by the Japanese during the war, on the basis that she cannot satisfy the criteria of being either born in the UK or having at least one parent or grandparent born in the UK. This will constitute indirect race discrimination if it cannot be objectively justified. Although the criteria are apparently neutral, they are closely linked to race and so they may be difficult to justify. 

Indirect Discrimination: same disadvantage

5.59 Indirect discrimination may also occur when an individual without the relevant protected characteristic experiences disadvantage alongside persons with the relevant protected characteristic. Provided that the discriminatory provision, criterion or practice puts, or would put, them at substantively the same disadvantage as people who share the relevant protected characteristic [footnote 44], such an individual may bring a claim for ‘same disadvantage’ indirect discrimination (s.19A). Objective justification applies to same disadvantage indirect discrimination (read paragraphs 5.46 to 5.58).

5.60 Although this type of indirect discrimination is sometimes referred to ‘associative indirect discrimination’, it is not necessary for there to be any relationship or association between the group with the relevant protected characteristic and the individual who does not share it. Rather, the individual without the relevant protected characteristic must be able to show that the disadvantage they experience is essentially the same as that experienced by the group sharing the protected characteristic.

Example

5.61 A local authority uses an algorithm to help identify housing benefit fraud. The algorithm identifies a higher incidence of housing benefit fraud in a specific postcode area. Based on this, the council introduces extra checks and verification steps on applications received from residents living in that particular postcode area. This results in delays in those applications being processed.

The area has a large population of residents of Bangladeshi heritage who are put at a disadvantage by the additional, postcode-specific fraud detection checks when applying for housing benefit. Unless the local authority can justify the policy, they may have a claim for indirect discrimination.

A white woman from an Irish background who lives in the same postcode area is subjected to the new fraud checks and her application also gets delayed. Unless the local authority can justify the policy, the woman may also have a claim for indirect discrimination.

Public authorities and justification of indirect discrimination

5.62 Where a public authority is seeking to justify indirect discrimination, evidence of how they have had regard to the issues of potential discriminatory impact and justification under their public sector equality duty is likely to be relevant.

Example

5.63 In a previous example (paragraph 5.58), the government department overseeing the ex-gratia payment scheme must, under its public sector equality duty, have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful race discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. Evidence of how it has carried out this duty is likely be relevant when considering any justification of the compensation scheme’s criteria.

Indirect discrimination and the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons

5.64 As well as having an obligation not to indirectly discriminate against disabled people, service providers, those exercising public functions and associations also have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. More detail about this is given in Chapter 7. These two duties frequently overlap, and it is sensible to consider them together.

5.65 When planning, service providers, those exercising public functions and associations will need to consider whether their practices indirectly discriminate against disabled people. If a practice indirectly discriminates against disabled people, then the service provider, person exercising a public function or association must consider whether the practice can be justified.

Example

5.66 A stately home has guided tours of its grounds and gardens which depart at 30-minute intervals. The guides are told to follow a strict timetable and to complete the tours within 45 minutes. Disabled people with mobility impairments are put at a disadvantage by this practice. When challenged by a group of disabled people, the stately home management realise:

  • that the practice is indirectly discriminating against disabled people with mobility impairments and that they need to consider whether there is any justification for the practice
  • that making reasonable adjustments by permitting one group more time would be incompatible with the policy, as groups following on the slower group would be held up
  • they could achieve the same level of profit from guided tours by removing the strict timetable and permitting tours to overlap
  • the indirectly discriminatory effect on people with a mobility impairment is unnecessary because they can achieve their business aim of profit by adopting other means of achieving the tour group volumes they seek

As a result, they change their practice and start running all their tours on an over-lapping basis as, well as extending their duration.

5.67 If the service provider, person exercising a public function or association plans to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons and makes those adjustments, then it will not have to change the practice for non-disabled persons, unless the provision, criterion or practice has a discriminatory impact related to another relevant protected characteristic.

5.68 In many cases when the service provider, person exercising a public function or association considers whether a practice is justifiable despite its impact on disabled persons, they will discover ways in which anticipatory reasonable adjustments can be made.

Chapter 5 footnotes

  1. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and ors v Harrod and ors [2017] IRLR 539
  2. Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112
  3. Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27
  4. Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27
  5. Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27
  6. Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27
  7. Ministry of Defence v DeBique [2010] IRLR 471
  8. Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust [2021] IRLR 729
  9. Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWCA Civ 1487, Hill v Revenue Comrs [1999] ICR 48
  10. Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39; Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd [2015] 3 All ER 725)
  11. Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39
  12. Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWCA Civ 1487, Hill v Revenue Comrs [1999] ICR 48
  13. The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023 ratifying C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredeleine Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (CHEZ)

Page updates

Published:

2 October 2024

Last updated:

2 October 2024