header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Indirect discrimination in focus

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
16 June 2017 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7750_pigott

Charles Pigott welcomes recent Supreme Court clarity on tackling indirect discrimination

  • In Essop and Naeem the Supreme Court has done much to restore coherence to this difficult area of the law.
  • As a result it has become harder for employers to persuade tribunals to dismiss indirect discrimination claims at a preliminary stage.

The combined appeals of Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency); Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] All ER (D) 12 (Apr) provided the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to offer authoritative guidance about some of the more troubling aspects of the law regarding indirect discrimination.

Essop concerned the impact of an internal test on BME (black and ethnic minority)candidates for promotion, while Naeem was about the impact of service-related pay on Muslim prison chaplains. In both cases there was no dispute about the existence of an apparently neutral ‘provision criterion or practice’ (PCP). However, the remaining ingredients in the definition of indirect discrimination in s19 of the Equality Act

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
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll