Identifying the provision, criterion or practice which puts a group at a particular disadvantage under s.19 Equality Act 2010. Essop v Home Office; Ishola v Transport for London.
Indirect sex discrimination; part-time workers; judicial notice. The EAT established that it is a matter of judicial notice that women are disproportionately represented among part-time workers. A requirement to work full-time therefore constitutes indirect discrimination against women. A foundational authority for the proposition that statistical proof is not required where disadvantage is inherent in the PCP. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Indirect discrimination; 'Objective Justification' requires a real need, appropriateness, and necessity. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Discrimination; justification; the tribunal must perform a critical evaluation of the employer's reasons, not just accept them. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Indirect discrimination; the claimant need not prove why a PCP puts their group at a disadvantage, only that it does .
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Indirect discrimination; group disadvantage; judicial notice. The EAT (Choudhury P) confirmed that group disadvantage need not be proved by statistical evidence alone, it may be established by statistical evidence, by inference, by the disadvantage being inherent in the PCP itself, or by judicial notice. It is well established by judicial notice that women are disproportionately represented among part-time workers, so a PCP penalising part-time working puts women at a particular disadvantage without further proof. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Indirect discrimination; individual disadvantage; correspondence with group disadvantage. The EAT held that individual disadvantage suffered by the claimant must correspond to the group disadvantage, a claimant cannot succeed if the disadvantage they personally suffer is qualitatively different from the disadvantage suffered by the group sharing the relevant protected characteristic. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Flexible working; indirect discrimination; a rejected flexible working appeal can be a 'disadvantage' even if later granted.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.