header-logo header-logo

Close—but close enough?

240526

Anjali Malik & Mukhtiar Singh consider the comparator question in discrimination claims

  • The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Jones and Ladbrokes set out a six-stage test for direct discrimination claims, emphasising the need to identify the relevant treatment before considering comparators.
  • Other recent cases show that tribunals increasingly investigate wider circumstances to identify evidential comparators.
  • Employers should expect scrutiny beyond named comparators, and maintain detailed factual records to demonstrate material differences.

Comparators have always been an essential element of direct discrimination claims, yet the approach to comparators continues to provide fertile grounds for appeal—and 2025 yielded a substantial crop of appeal decisions.

June decisions

Readers may recall that in Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568, the Court of Appeal determined that the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in upholding the employment tribunal’s (ET’s) decision that the claim was out of time, had erred by considering the claimant’s (C’s) suspicion of the necessary facts to establish discrimination as a relevant

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll