Discrimination at Workplace

​

Definitions

​

Discrimination in the workplace occurs when an employee is treated unfairly or less favorably because of certain protected characteristics. These characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Discrimination can manifest in various forms, such as direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimization.

​

Legal Requirements

​

To successfully bring a discrimination claim in the UK, the following legal requirements must be met:

​

• Protected Characteristic: The employee must belong to a group with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. This means the unfair treatment must be based on one of the protected characteristics listed above.

• Unfair Treatment: The employee must demonstrate that they were treated unfairly in comparison to others who do not share the same protected characteristic. This could involve being overlooked for promotion, receiving lower pay, or being subject to derogatory comments.

• Timely Action: Discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the last discriminatory act. If the claim is not filed within this time frame, it may be dismissed unless the tribunal agrees to extend the deadline.

• Evidence: The employee must provide evidence to support their claim. This could include witness statements, emails, or other documents that show discriminatory behaviour.

​

Real life Examples with Case Law

​​

• Shamoon v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2003)

  • Situation: Shamoon, a female police officer, claimed she was discriminated against after her duties were reduced, allegedly due to her gender.

  • Outcome: The House of Lords ruled in favour of Shamoon, establishing that reducing her duties constituted direct sex discrimination.

​

• Coleman v. Attridge Law (2008)

  • Situation: Coleman claimed she was discriminated against because she was the primary carer for her disabled son.

  • Outcome: The European Court of Justice ruled that discrimination by association is unlawful, setting a precedent for future cases involving associated discrimination.

​

• Mandla v. Dowell Lee (1983)

  • Situation: A Sikh boy was refused entry to a school because he wore a turban, which was against the school’s dress code.

  • Outcome: The House of Lords found that the school’s policy indirectly discriminated against the boy based on his religion, leading to a successful claim.

​

• Chagger v. Abbey National plc (2009)

  • Situation: Chagger claimed he was dismissed because of his race after being selected for redundancy over a white colleague.

  • Outcome: The Employment Tribunal found in favour of Chagger, ruling that race had played a part in the redundancy decision, and he was awarded significant compensation.

​

• Eweida v. British Airways plc (2010)

  • Situation: Eweida, a Christian employee, was sent home for wearing a cross necklace, which breached the company’s uniform policy.

  • Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of Eweida, stating that British Airways had unlawfully discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her religious beliefs.

​

• English v. Thomas Sanderson Ltd (2008)

  • Situation: English was harassed at work based on the perception that he was gay, even though he was not.

  • Outcome: The Court of Appeal ruled that discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation is unlawful, supporting English’s claim.

​

• Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v. Homer (2012)

  • Situation: Homer, an older employee, was unable to obtain a law degree required for promotion before his retirement age and claimed age discrimination.

  • Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Homer, stating that the requirement indirectly discriminated against older workers.

​

• Ladele v. London Borough of Islington (2009)

  • Situation: Ladele, a Christian registrar, was disciplined for refusing to conduct same-sex civil partnerships due to her religious beliefs.

  • Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights found that the council’s actions were justified and did not constitute discrimination, as they were enforcing their equality policy.

​

• Essop and Others v. Home Office (2017)

  • Situation: A group of employees claimed that a workplace test indirectly discriminated against older and minority ethnic workers, as they were more likely to fail it.

  • Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that claimants do not need to prove why the measure had a discriminatory impact, only that it did, which supported the employees' claims.

​

• Walker v. Innospec Ltd (2017)

  • Situation: Walker, a retired gay employee, was denied survivor benefits for his civil partner, which would have been available to a spouse in a heterosexual marriage.

  • Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Walker, stating that denying benefits based on sexual orientation was unlawful discrimination.

​​

​

How We Can Help

​

• Evaluate Your Case: We will thoroughly assess the circumstances surrounding your resignation to determine if you have a strong claim for constructive dismissal.

• Gather Evidence: We will assist you in collecting the necessary evidence to support your claim, including documentation of the breach of contract and any relevant communications with your employer.

• Negotiate on Your Behalf: If appropriate, we can negotiate with your former employer to seek a settlement before proceeding to a tribunal.

• Represent You in Tribunal: Should your case go to tribunal, we will provide expert representation to ensure your rights are protected and to maximize your chances of a successful outcome.

​