Caste discrimination may be prohibited under the Equality Act 2010 if it relates to a protected characteristic such as a person’s ethnic origin, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held.
In the first EAT case to consider caste-based discrimination, Chandhok v Tirkey UKEAT/0190/14/KN, Mr and Mrs Chandhok employed Ms Tirkey, a worker from India, as a nanny. She claimed they treated her badly and in a demeaning manner, partly because she was from a lower caste. The Chandhoks argued that this part of the claim should be struck out because caste is not a protected characteristic.
However, Mr Justice Langstaff in the EAT held that, while caste is not by itself a protected characteristic, it may form part of an individual’s ethnic origin. Therefore, caste discrimination may be protected as a form of race discrimination.
Langstaff J, President of the EAT, said: “There may be factual circumstances in which the application of the label ‘caste’ is appropriate, many of which are capable—depending on their facts—of falling within the scope of s 9(1) [of the Equality Act], particularly coming within ‘ethnic origins’, as portraying a group with characteristics determined in part by descent, and of a sufficient quality to be described as ‘ethnic’. As the judge put it, caste ‘is an integral part of the picture’ in the present case.”
Catherine Urquhart, of Ely Chambers, says: “Ms Tirkey had alleged that her employers, Mr and Mrs Chandok, had discriminated against her in part due to her low status in the caste system. At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Sigsworth had refused to strike out the amendment claiming caste-based discrimination, and the respondents appealed.
“Langstaff P considered Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548 and R (E) v Governing Body of JFS and Another [2010] 2 AC 728 and concluded that the term ‘ethnic origins’ in s 9 has a ‘wide and flexible scope’ and must include descent, which is closely linked to caste.
Thus, caste is not yet a free-standing protected characteristic—claimants must show that their ethnic or national origins, seen in the light of Mandla and JFS, were the reason for their treatment.”
