Authored By: Zainab ramzan
Coventry University
Introduction to the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 serves as the foundation of anti-discrimination law in the United Kingdom, combining and enhancing over 116 legislative measures into a singular, comprehensive framework. The Act was established to advance equality, eliminate discrimination, and cultivate inclusive workplaces, identifying nine protected characteristics: age, handicap, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
In the workplace environment, the Act holds particular importance as it regulates every aspect of employment, including recruiting, selection, termination, and post-employment references. Recent tribunal figures reveal a 7% rise in discrimination claims for 2023-2024, with disability discrimination cases exhibiting the most significant increase at 12% year-on-year. Significant cases like Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions (2022) persist in influencing the developing interpretation of the statute.
This article analyses the legal safeguards against workplace discrimination as specified by the Equality Act, examining essential clauses, investigating current court interpretations, and evaluating practical ramifications for businesses and employees.
Background and Context
The United Kingdom’s progression towards comprehensive equality legislation started with the Race Relations Act of 1965, succeeded by the Equal Pay Act of 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, each targeting specific types of discrimination[1]. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and many additional rules concerning age, sexual orientation, and religion discrimination resulted in a disjointed statutory framework before 2010[2].
The Equality Act 2010 originated from the suggestions of the Discrimination Law Review (2007), which emphasised the necessity for a concerted approach[3]. This transition from distributed regulation to a cohesive statute enhanced and unified protection for all safeguarded qualities. The Act annulled more than 116 distinct legislative measures while maintaining and augmenting their essential provisions[4].
Significant innovations encompassed the extension of associative discrimination protection to all characteristics Coleman v Attridge Law [2008] UKEAT/0417/07, the expansion of the harassment definition, the introduction of discrimination arising from disability Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 910, and the broadening of indirect discrimination parameters. EU legislation notably impacted the Act’s formulation, especially via Framework Directive 2000/78/EC, which mandates equal treatment in employment[5]. In P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] IRLR 347, the European Court of Justice’s decision regarding gender reassignment discrimination significantly influenced UK safeguards. Post-Brexit, although the UK is no longer obligated to adhere to future EU equality jurisprudence, the basic impact of EU law persists inside the Act’s structure and interpretation[6].
Protected Characteristics Analysis
The Equality Act 2010 identifies nine protected characteristics, providing comprehensive protection against discrimination across various aspects of employment[7]. This section examines the legal framework surrounding these characteristics and relevant jurisprudence.
Age
Age discrimination encompasses less favourable treatment based on a person’s age or age group[8]. The scope extends to both younger and older workers, prohibiting both direct and indirect discrimination unless objectively justified by a legitimate aim[9]. In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes[10], the Supreme Court established that justification for direct age discrimination requires social policy objectives beyond mere business necessity, while proportionality demands that the means used correspond to a genuine need.
Disability
Disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment with substantial and long-term adverse effects on one’s ability to conduct normal day-to-day activities[11]. The Act imposes unique obligations on employers, including reasonable adjustment duties and protection against discrimination arising from disability[12]. In Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension,[13] the Supreme Court clarified that favourable treatment of disabled people does not constitute discrimination against non-disabled people. The progressive condition protection was affirmed in Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL[14], where the Court held that a temporary inability to work may constitute disability if sufficiently long-term.
Gender Reassignment
Protection extends to individuals proposing, undergoing, or having undergone a process of gender reassignment[15]. Notably, medical supervision is not required, as established in Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover[16], where the tribunal ruled that non-binary and gender-fluid identities fall within this protected characteristic. The scope includes associative discrimination, as demonstrated in P v S and Cornwall County Council[17].
Race
Race encompasses colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins[18].In Chandok v Tirkey,[19] the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that caste discrimination can fall within the protected characteristic of race. The definition of ethnic origins was expansively interpreted in Mandla v Dowell Lee[20], establishing that ethnic groups possess a long-shared history and cultural traditions.
Religion or Belief
This characteristic covers any religious or philosophical belief, including lack of belief[21]. For a belief to qualify for protection, it must be genuinely held, concern a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, attain a certain level of cogency and seriousness, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, as established in Grainger plc v Nicholson[22]. In Eweida v United Kingdom[23], the European Court of Human Rights emphasised the importance of religious manifestation in the workplace.
Sex
Protection against sex discrimination covers both men and women[24]. In Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey[25], the court established that perception discrimination applies across protected characteristics. The landmark case of Walker v Innospec Ltd[26] addressed pension rights for same-sex partners, confirming equal treatment obligations.
Sexual Orientation
This characteristic protects individuals based on sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex, opposite sex, or both sexes[27]. In Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd[28], the Supreme Court distinguished between discrimination based on sexual orientation and objection to a particular message, emphasising that the latter may not constitute discrimination.
Burden of Proof
Section 136 of the Act establishes a two-stage burden of proof in discrimination claims[29]. Initially, the claimant must establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred. If successful, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove no discrimination occurred[30]. In Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd[31],the Supreme Court clarified that while the initial evidential burden rests with the claimant, tribunals must consider all evidence from whatever source at the first stage.
Types of Discrimination, Employer Obligations, and Enforcement
Types of Discrimination
Direct discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic[32]. In R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS[33], the Supreme Court established that motive is irrelevant; what matters is the reason for the treatment. Indirect discrimination arises when a neutral provision disadvantages persons sharing a protected characteristic[34], which can be justified if proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim. In Essop v Home Office[35], claimants need not explain why the provision causes disadvantage, only that it does.
Harassment involves unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates dignity or creates an intimidating environment[36].Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal[37] established a three-part test: unwanted conduct, related to a protected characteristic, with prohibited effect. Victimisation protects individuals who do protected acts from detrimental treatment[38]. Derbyshire v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council[39] held that reasonable responses to litigation could still constitute victimisation if they caused detriment.
Recent case law has refined these concepts. In Forstater v CGD Europe[40], the EAT established that gender-critical beliefs are protected, while Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions[41] addressed the balance between religious beliefs and transgender rights.
Employer Obligations and Defences
Employers must make reasonable adjustments to remove disadvantages faced by disabled employees[42]. In Archibald v Fife Council, this duty may include transferring employees to roles without competitive interview. The duty is anticipatory and initiative-taking, requiring employers to consider barriers before individual requests arise.
Employers can justify indirect discrimination by demonstrating legitimate aims pursued proportionately[43]. In Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire[44], cost reduction alone is insufficient justification. The Act permits positive action to address disadvantage or encourage participation by underrepresented groups.[45] Section 159 allows employers to consider protected characteristics as ‘tiebreakers’ when candidates are equally qualified.[46]
Enforcement and Remedies
Employment tribunals enforce discrimination claims, with county courts managing non-employment matters.[47] Claimants must normally present claims within three months of the discriminatory act[48]. In Gisda Cyf v Barratt[49], the Supreme Court confirmed time runs from when the employee knew or should have known of the discriminatory act.
Available remedies include declarations, recommendations, and compensation (uncapped for discrimination)[50]. Tribunals can award damages for injury to feelings using the Vento bands, recently updated in Komeng v Creative Support Ltd[51]. In 2023, significant awards included £1.6 million in Olubando v Royal Mail Group Ltd[52] for race discrimination and constructive dismissal.
Practical Implications and Future Developments
Best practices for employers include comprehensive equality policies, regular training, and transparent recruitment processes.[53] Risk management requires documentation of decisions and regular equality impact assessments. Post-Brexit, the UK can diverge from EU jurisprudence, though retained EU law principles still apply[54].
Remote working presents new challenges, including ensuring reasonable adjustments in home environments and preventing harassment in virtual settings. Emerging areas include neurodiversity protections, with cases like Brookes v The Government Legal Service[55] recognising autism-related adjustments. The Women and Equalities Committee has recommended strengthening enforcement mechanisms, suggesting potential reforms to the Equality Act framework[56].
Conclusion
The Equality Act 2010 has fundamentally transformed the UK’s approach to workplace discrimination by consolidating disparate legislation into a coherent framework that protects nine characteristics. While case law continues to refine the Act’s scope and application, challenges remain in ensuring effective implementation across all sectors. The post-Brexit landscape presents both opportunities and risks as the UK may diverge from EU jurisprudence while maintaining the Act’s core protections.
Looking forward, strengthening enforcement mechanisms, addressing emerging forms of discrimination in digital workplaces, and expanding protections for neurodivergent individuals represent critical areas for development. For the Act to fulfill its promise, courts must balance competing rights with proportionality, employers must move beyond mere compliance to embrace inclusive workplace cultures, and policymakers must ensure the equality framework remains responsive to evolving social and technological contexts.
Bibliography:
- ——, “1) Mr A Chandhok 2) Mrs P Chandhok v Ms P Tirkey: UKEAT/0190/14/KN” GOV.UK (September 12, 2017) https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/1-mr-a-chandhok-2-mrs-p-chandhok-v-ms-p-tirkey-ukeat-0190-14-kn
- ——, “Dr David Mackereth v The Department of Work and Pensions (1) Advanced Personnel Management Group (UK) Limited (2): [2022] EAT 99” GOV.UK (July 1, 2022) https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/dr-david-mackereth-v-the-department-of-work-and-pensions-1-advanced-personnel-management-group-uk-limited-2-2022-eat-99
- ——, “Explanatory Notes to Equality Act 2010” (Explanatory Notes) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/contents
- ——, “Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others: UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ” GOV.UK (June 10, 2021) https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj
- “Directive – 2000/78 – EN – EUR-Lex” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/78/oj/eng
- “ECJ 1 December 2016, Case C-395/15 (Daouidi), Discrimination” (2017) 2 European Employment Law Cases 46
- “Enforcing the Equality Act: The Law and the Role of the EHRC Inquiry – Committees” (UK Parliament) https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6025/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-ehrc-inquiry/publications/
- “Equality Act 2010” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
- “Essop and Others (Appellants) v Home Office (UK Border Agency) (Respondent)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0161
- “Gisda Cyf (Appellant) v Barratt (Respondent)” (UK Supreme Court) https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2009-0157
- “Grainger Plc and Others v Nicholson (2010)” (Be Aware UK, February 7, 2024) https://blogs.dlapiper.com/beaware/grainger-plc-and-others-v-nicholson-2010/
- “Homer (Appellant) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Respondent)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0102
- “House of Lords – Archibald (Appellant) v. Fife Council (Respondents) (Scotland)” (The Stationery Office Ltd) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040701/arch-1.htm
- “Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] IRLR 258, CA” (Croner-i) https://app.croneri.co.uk/law-and-guidance/case-reports/igen-ltd-v-wong-2005-irlr-258-ca
- “Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020
- “Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others” (Blackstone Chambers) https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/lee-v-ashers-baking-company-ltd-and-others/
- “Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee, [1983] 1 All ER 1062” (https://www.casemine.com) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6d7
- “R (on the Application of E) (Respondent) v Governing Body of JFS and the Admissions Appeal Panel of JFS (Appellants) and Others” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2009-0105
- “Richmond Pharmacology v. Dhaliwal, [2009] ICR 724” (https://www.casemine.com) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff79160d03e7f57eaf4bd
- “Royal Mail Group Ltd (Respondent) v Efobi (Appellant)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0068
- “Seldon (Appellant) v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) (Respondent)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0201#judgment-details
- “Statutory Bodies (ACAS; Central Arbitration Committee (CAC); Employment Tribunals; Health and Safety Executive (HSE); Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC); Low Pay Commission),” , Key Concepts in Human Resource Management (SAGE Publications Ltd 2010) https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251355.n47
- “Walker (Appellant) v Innospec Limited and Others (Respondents)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0090
- “Williams (Appellant) v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme and Another (Respondents)” (UK Supreme Court) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0141
- Commission E and HR, Employment Statutory Code of Practice (Stationery Office/Tso 2011)
- ECHR, “HUDOC” (European Court of Human Rights) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-7391%22]}
- Fredman S, Discrimination Law (Oxford University Press 2011)
- Government Equalities Office, “Equality Act 2010: Guidance” (GOV.UK, February 27, 2013) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance
- Hepple B, Equality: The Legal Framework (Bloomsbury Publishing 2014)
- HM Courts & Tribunals Service, “1) Mr A Chandhok 2) Mrs P Chandhok v Ms P Tirkey: UKEAT/0190/14/KN” GOV.UK (September 12, 2017) https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/1-mr-a-chandhok-2-mrs-p-chandhok-v-ms-p-tirkey-ukeat-0190-14-kn
- HM Courts & Tribunals Service, “The Government Legal Service v Ms T Brookes: UKEAT/0302/16/RN” GOV.UK (October 30, 2017) https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/the-government-legal-service-v-ms-t-brookes-ukeat-0302-16-rn
- JUSTICE, “Discrimination Law Review” (JUSTICE, January 6, 2007) https://justice.org.uk/discrimination-law-review/
- Lau H, “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination” (2018) 2 Brill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law 1
- Monaghan K, Equality Law (OUP Oxford 2007)
- Shirt D, “Court Of Appeal Confirms The Equality Act Covers ‘Perceived Disability’ Discrimination” Irwin Mitchell LLP (July 2, 2019) https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/newsandmedia/2019/july/chief-constable-of-norfolk-v-coffey
- Vickers L, Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination, and the Workplace (Bloomsbury Publishing 2016)
- Webb T, R (on the Application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court (Oxford University Press 2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0039
Reference (S)
[1] Sandra Fredman, Discrimination Law (Oxford University Press 2011).
[2] Bob Hepple, Equality: The Legal Framework (Bloomsbury Publishing 2014).
[3] JUSTICE, “Discrimination Law Review” (JUSTICE, January 6, 2007)
[4] Government Equalities Office, “Explanatory Notes to Equality Act 2010” (Explanatory Notes)
[5] Karon Monaghan, Equality Law (OUP Oxford 2007).
[6] Thomas Webb, R (on the Application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court (Oxford University Press 2017).
[7] Equality Act 2010, s 4
[8] Equality Act 2010, s 5
[9] Equality Act 2010, s 13(2)
[10] “Seldon (Appellant) v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) (Respondent)” (UK Supreme Court)
[11] Equality Act 2010, s 6(1).
[12] Equality Act 2010, ss 15, 20-22
[13] “Williams (Appellant) v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme and Another (Respondents)” (UK Supreme Court)
[14] “ECJ 1 December 2016, Case C-395/15 (Daouidi), Discrimination” (2017) 2 European Employment Law Cases 46.
[15] Equality Act 2010, s 7
[16] Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd ET/1304471/2018
[17] P v S and Cornwall County Council (Case C-13/94) [1996] ECR I-2143, [1996] IRLR 347
[18] Equality Act 2010, s 9
[19] HM Courts & Tribunals Service, “1) Mr A Chandhok 2) Mrs P Chandhok v Ms P Tirkey: UKEAT/0190/14/KN” GOV.UK (September 12, 2017)
[20] “Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee, [1983] 1 All ER 1062” (https://www.casemine.com)
[21] Equality Act 2010, s 10
[22] “Grainger Plc and Others v Nicholson (2010)” (Be Aware UK, February 7, 2024).
[23] Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8.
[24] Equality Act 2010, s 11
[25] Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey [2019] EWCA Civ 1061, [2020] ICR 145
[26] “Walker (Appellant) v Innospec Limited and Others (Respondents)” (UK Supreme Court)
[27] Equality Act 2010, s 12
[28] “Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland)” (UK Supreme Court)
[29] Equality Act 2010, s 136.
[30] Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142, [2005] ICR 931
[31] Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33, [2021] 1 WLR 3863.
[32] Equality Act 2010, s 13
[33] “R (on the Application of E) (Respondent) v Governing Body of JFS and the Admissions Appeal Panel of JFS (Appellants) and Others” (UK Supreme Court)
[34] Equality Act 2010, s 19.
[35] Essop and Others (Appellants) v Home Office (UK Border Agency) (Respondent) (UK Supreme Court)
[36] Equality Act 2010, s 26
[37] Richmond Pharmacology v. Dhaliwal, [2009] ICR 724
[38] Equality Act 2010, s 27
[39] Derbyshire v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] UKHL 16, [2007] ICR 841.
[40] Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] EAT 105, [2022] ICR 1, 103
[41] Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions [2022] EAT 99.
[42] Equality Act 2010, ss 20-22
[43] Equality Act 2010, s 19(2)(d)
[44] “Homer (Appellant) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Respondent)” (UK Supreme Court)
[45] Equality Act 2010, s 158
[46] Equality Act 2010, s 159(4).
[47] Equality Act 2010, s 114
[48] Equality Act 2010, s 123
[49] Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41, [2010] ICR 1475
[50] Equality Act 2010, s 124
[51] Komeng v Creative Support Ltd (2022) UKEAT/0275/19/LA.
[52] Olubando v Royal Mail Group Ltd ET/2301658/2021
[53] Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Employment Statutory Code of Practice’ (EHRC 2011).
[54] European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, s 6
[55] Brookes v The Government Legal Service [2017] UKEAT/0302/16/RN
[56] Women and Equalities Committee, ‘Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the EHRC’ (HC 2019).
