Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Tricky discrimination question.

Employment and Discrimination Law

Tricky discrimination question.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:16 pm

A class of people is not protected from discrimination, but has a high incidence of a protected characteristic.
An organisation discriminates against the group.
Is this lawful or no?

The suspicion is that the discrimination is because of the protected characteristic, but the organisation can easily claim that it is because of the group and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Tricky discrimination question.

Postby diy » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:56 pm

Discrimination against non-protected characteristics is lawful.

When did you last meet a lawyer with a working class background
https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online ... s-accents/
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Tricky discrimination question.

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 pm

The OP should note the reversal of the burden of proof in s136 Equality Act 2010. If this is engaged, it is for the employer to prove that its decision was taken on grounds that did not contravene the Act.

136 Burden of proof
(1)This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act.
(2)If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred.
(3)But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.
(4)The reference to a contravention of this Act includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule.
...


This is complicated if not every person affected has the protected characteristic in question, and is known by the person taking the discriminatory action not to have that characteristic.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Tricky discrimination question.

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:59 pm

diy: 3 minutes ago, in this office.

And you?

(I see your trawling found a very recent article)
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Tricky discrimination question.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:27 pm

atticus wrote:The OP should note the reversal of the burden of proof in s136 Equality Act 2010. If this is engaged, it is for the employer to prove that its decision was taken on grounds that did not contravene the Act.


Thank you. This wasn't actually an employment question (The section header is "Employment and Discrimination), but on this one I think the point works both ways regardless.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Tricky discrimination question.

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:22 pm

It does.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W


Return to Employment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests