Introduction
Indirect discrimination, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, occurs when a seemingly neutral provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) places individuals sharing a particular protected characteristic at a significant disadvantage compared to others. This principle ensures that policies applied uniformly do not inadvertently harm specific groups. Key requirements to establish a claim of indirect discrimination include the identification of the PCP, evidence of a disproportionate impact on a group with the protected characteristic, demonstration of personal disadvantage to the claimant, and the inability of the respondent to justify the PCP as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Understanding the Legal Framework
What Constitutes a PCP?
A provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) can be any formal or informal policy, rule, or arrangement that an organization applies. Consider a PCP as a general policy that, while intended to be fair, might not fit everyone equally. For instance, a company's requirement that all employees work full-time hours could be a PCP.
Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act 2010
Indirect discrimination applies to most protected characteristics, excluding pregnancy and maternity. These characteristics include:
- Age
- Disability
- Gender reassignment
- Marriage and civil partnership
- Race
- Religion or belief
- Sex
- Sexual orientation
It's important to recognize that indirect discrimination can affect any of these groups, depending on how a PCP impacts them.
Key Elements of Indirect Discrimination
To establish a claim, four essential elements must be met:
-
Application of a PCP: The organization applies a PCP universally to all employees or applicants.
-
Group Disadvantage: The PCP puts, or would put, individuals sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to others.
-
Personal Disadvantage: The claimant personally suffers the disadvantage caused by the PCP.
-
Lack of Justification: The respondent cannot show that the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Let's Break It Down with an Analogy
Picture a shoe store that decides to stock only shoes in sizes 7 to 10 because those are the most commonly sold sizes. While this policy seems reasonable on the surface, it indirectly discriminates against people who have smaller or larger feet. Similarly, a PCP might seem neutral but can disadvantage certain groups.
Legal Tests and Burden of Proof
The Four-Stage Test
Courts adopt a structured approach when examining indirect discrimination claims:
-
Identify the PCP: Determine the specific policy or practice in question.
-
Assess Group Disadvantage: Evaluate whether the PCP disadvantages a group sharing the protected characteristic.
-
Establish Personal Disadvantage: Confirm that the claimant is personally affected by the PCP.
-
Justification: Examine if the PCP is justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The Comparator Analysis
In assessing disadvantage, courts often consider a hypothetical comparator—someone in a similar situation but without the protected characteristic—to determine if there is less favorable treatment.
Burden of Proof
Initially, the claimant must establish facts from which a tribunal could conclude that indirect discrimination has occurred. Once this basic case is made, the burden shifts to the respondent to justify the PCP.
Proportionality: Balancing Act
The proportionality test weighs the discriminatory effect of the PCP against the legitimacy of the aim pursued. The key question is whether the means used are appropriate and necessary. Are there less discriminatory alternatives available?
Notable Case Law
Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27
In this case, a requirement for all employees to pass a core skills assessment for promotion was challenged. Statistics showed that Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) candidates and older candidates had lower pass rates than their white and younger counterparts. The Supreme Court held that claimants do not need to establish the reason why the PCP puts the group at a disadvantage—evidence of the disadvantage is sufficient.
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15
Here, the claimant was required to obtain a law degree to qualify for the highest pay grade, a requirement introduced when he was close to retirement. The court found this to be indirectly discriminatory on the basis of age, as older employees would find it more challenging to meet this requirement before retirement.
Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80
A policy prohibiting visible jewelry indirectly discriminated against a Christian employee who wished to wear a cross necklace. The court considered whether the policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (uniformity and brand image) but ultimately found that it placed the employee at a disadvantage without sufficient justification.
Practical Implications
Workplace Policies That Could Be Indirectly Discriminatory
-
Dress Codes: Requiring all employees to conform to a specific dress code might disadvantage those whose religious beliefs mandate certain attire.
-
Working Hours: Mandating work on specific days could disadvantage employees who observe religious holidays.
-
Physical Requirements: Physical fitness standards might disadvantage older employees or those with disabilities unless justified.
Recruitment Practices
-
Educational Requirements: Demanding certain qualifications may disadvantage older applicants who did not have the same educational opportunities.
-
Language Proficiency: Requiring high levels of proficiency in a particular language could disadvantage individuals from different ethnic backgrounds, unless necessary for the role.
Real-World Example
Consider a technology firm that requires all employees to be available for evening meetings. This policy might disadvantage employees with childcare responsibilities, who are more likely to be women, thereby constituting indirect sex discrimination unless justified.
Justifying a PCP
Legitimate Aim and Proportionate Means
An employer can defend a PCP if it serves a legitimate aim and is a proportionate means of achieving that aim. For example, a fire service requiring a certain level of physical fitness is likely to be justified due to the nature of the job.
Exploring Alternatives
Employers should consider whether less discriminatory alternatives could achieve the same aim. If reasonable adjustments can be made, such as flexible working hours or exceptions to dress codes, these should be implemented to avoid indirect discrimination.
Conclusion
Understanding the complexities of indirect discrimination requires a thorough knowledge of how the Equality Act 2010 operates in practice. Proportionality is central to this concept, balancing the necessity of a PCP against its discriminatory impact. It's not enough to apply a policy uniformly; one must consider who might be unfairly affected. In the exam context, it's important to understand the interplay between the four key elements of establishing indirect discrimination and the justification defenses. For instance, when analyzing a scenario, identify the PCP, determine the disadvantaged group, assess personal disadvantage, and consider possible justifications. Recognizing how courts apply the proportionality test, as illustrated in cases like Essop and Homer, is essential. Understanding indirect discrimination is not merely about memorizing statutes but about interpreting how seemingly neutral policies can have unintended consequences. By applying these principles, you'll be better equipped to tackle exam questions that require detailed legal analysis.
