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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll