HR | Employment Law | Health & Safety

01244 893776

black and white city man people

Direct Discrimination

» Share This Post

Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on email

Under the Equality Act 2010, a person can be discriminated against if they are treated less favourably due to a certain attribute or attributes that they possess. These attributes must fall under one of the protected characteristics as listed in the Act.

The protected characteristics are:

  • Age
  • Sex (gender)
  • Disability
  • Gender reassignment
  • Marriage and civil partnership
  • Pregnancy and maternity
  • Race
  • Religion or belief
  • Sexual orientation

Less favourable treatment is an employee being treated indifferently, in a detrimental way to another employee who does not share the same protected characteristic. In order to show direct discrimination, the detrimental treatment must be compared to the treatment of another employee who does not share the relevant protected characteristic.

This employee is known as the comparator. The two situations need not be identical, but there should be sufficient similarities to demonstrate direct discrimination. The comparator does not need to be a real person, a hypothetical comparator can be used if the situation has not previously arisen in the workplace.

It is not always necessary for an employee to provide evidence of a comparator if it is obvious that the mistreatment occurred because of the protected characteristic.

There are two situations in which direct discrimination can be justified, namely:

  • Direct age discrimination
  • Discrimination arising from disability.

The discrimination will only be justified if it can be shown that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. A legitimate aim is the underlying reason behind the discrimination and can include aims such as:

  • Health, safety and welfare of individuals
  • Business requirements
  • Economic reasons

For the aim to be proportionate, it must have been carefully considered against the discrimination it would cause and must be necessary and appropriate.

It is very difficult to justify direct discrimination, and it is recommended that you seek specialist legal advice.

About The Author.

James Rowland

James Rowland

James is the Commercial Director at Neathouse Partners. He is responsible for all Account Management, Sales & Marketing within the company. Having gained a BSc in Psychology and further study for his post-grad Law degree, James embarked on his legal career in 2014. Since then, he has become an Associate Director at a national Employment Law boutique, studied for a Masters in Marketing, and as of 2018, been a Director at Neathouse Partners. Outside of the office, James is a keen cricketer, playing very badly (he calls himself a Batsman but averages single figures) in the Cheshire League for Nantwich CC. He also loves watching his childhood football team, Crewe Alexandra, and is an avid lover of cinema (his favourite film being Pulp Fiction). Feel free to connect with James on LinkedIn.
Sex discrimination
Discrimination

Sex Discrimination

As one of nine protected characteristics, employees cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of their sex, as covered by the Equality Act 2010. Despite

Mental Health In The Workplace
Absence

Mental Health In The Workplace

With 1 in 4 people experiencing mental health problems each year, that’s a quarter of your employees that could be struggling with their mental health,

Share:

More Posts

Sex discrimination

Sex Discrimination

As one of nine protected characteristics, employees cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of their sex, as covered by the Equality Act 2010. Despite

Mental Health In The Workplace

Mental Health In The Workplace

With 1 in 4 people experiencing mental health problems each year, that’s a quarter of your employees that could be struggling with their mental health,