Ymwadiad: Nid cyngor cyfreithiol yw hwn. Mae deddfwriaeth a chyfraith achosion yn newid. Ymgynghorwch bob amser â chyfreithiwr cymwys ar gyfer eich sefyllfa benodol.

Pob achos
Equality & Discrimination
Supreme Court
2017

Essop v Home Office

[2017] UKSC 27

Ratio Decidendi

In an indirect discrimination claim, the claimant does not need to prove why a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage — only that it does so.

Ffeithiau

BME and older candidates for promotion in the Home Office had statistically lower pass rates on a core skills assessment. Claimants argued this constituted indirect discrimination.

Crynodeb o'r dyfarniad

The Supreme Court held that indirect discrimination does not require the claimant to explain the reason for the disadvantage. It is enough to show that a PCP puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared with others.

Dyfyniadau allweddol

"There is no requirement in indirect discrimination to explain why a PCP puts one group at a disadvantage compared with others."

Baroness Hale

Triniaeth ddilynol

Followed

Leading authority on the elements of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Related Content

Related Legislation