header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 May 2017 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7746 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Back on track

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7746_keen

The Supreme Court has re-established the orthodoxy in indirect discrimination, says Spencer Keen
  • This judgment in Essop & Naeem will assist employment tribunals to apply the test for indirect discrimination more easily.

Indirect discrimination occurs on grounds of race where a person, A, applies to another, B, a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) in relation to a relevant characteristic of B’s. The application of the PCP will be discriminatory where A applies it to persons who do not share the characteristic and it puts (or would put) persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage.

Two difficult questions have plagued recent indirect discrimination cases. First, where it is possible to prove that a particular group has been disadvantaged, but it is not possible to say why, is the fact of the disadvantage sufficient to require the employer to justify its conduct or does the claimant also need to show that the disadvantage is connected with the characteristic? Secondly, does a claimant who belongs to the disadvantaged group have to show

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll