ਬੇਦਾਅਵਾ: ਇਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਸਲਾਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਅਤੇ ਕੇਸ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਬਦਲਦੇ ਰਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾ ਆਪਣੀ ਖਾਸ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਵਕੀਲ ਨਾਲ ਸਲਾਹ ਕਰੋ।

ਸਾਰੇ ਕੇਸ
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.

ਤੱਥ

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.

ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦਾ ਸਾਰ

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.

ਮੁੱਖ ਹਵਾਲੇ

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

Baroness Hale

ਬਾਅਦ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ

Followed

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

Related Content

Related Legislation