JPP Law Blog
Supreme Court Rulings Help Clarify Law on Indirect Discrimination
The Supreme Court has provided two rulings that help clarify the law on indirect discrimination in the workplace.
In the first case, the employer required staff to pass a skills assessment to be promoted. Some employees complained when they failed the assessment. They were either black and minority ethnic (BME) candidates or aged over 35.
They quoted a statistical report which found that BME and older candidates had a proportionately lower pass rate than white and younger candidates, they alleged indirect age and/or race discrimination.
They claimed that the requirement to pass the assessment was a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which disadvantaged them. The statistical report did not explain the differential impact.
The Supreme Court allowed their appeal. It held that the definition of indirect discrimination did not expressly require an explanation of why a PCP disadvantaged a group. It was enough that it did.
The reason for the disadvantage need not be unlawful in itself or be under the employer's control.
There was also no requirement that the PCP disadvantaged every group member. The fact that some BME or older candidates could pass the test was irrelevant. The group was disadvantaged because the proportion of those who could pass was smaller than that of white or younger candidates.
The case was sent back to the Employment Tribunal to be reconsidered.
In the second appeal, the employee was a Muslim prison chaplain. The Prison Service pay scheme related pay to length of service. Average pay for Muslim chaplains was lower than that for Christian chaplains.
Muslims had only been employed since 2002, whereas many Christians had started their employment earlier so were higher on the pay scale. The scale was transitioning so that the time taken to go from the bottom of the scale to the top would fall from 17 years to 6.
The employment tribunal held that the scheme was indirectly discriminatory but could be justified because the pay scale was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The Supreme Court upheld that decision.
To find out more about JPP's employment law services please visit employment law
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (108)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (119)
- Intellectual Property (3)
- Start-ups (25)
- Videos (8)
- 2022 May (1)
- 2022 April (3)
- 2022 March (2)
- 2022 February (2)
- 2022 January (2)
- 2021 December (1)
- 2021 November (1)
- 2021 October (1)
- 2021 September (1)
- 2021 August (1)
- 2021 July (1)
- 2021 May (1)
- 2021 April (1)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)