header-logo header-logo

19 May 2017 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7746 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Back on track

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll