ข้อจำกัดความรับผิดชอบ: นี่ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำทางกฎหมาย กฎหมายและคดีมีการเปลี่ยนแปลง โปรดปรึกษาทนายความที่มีคุณสมบัติสำหรับสถานการณ์เฉพาะของคุณ

คดีทั้งหมด
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.

ข้อเท็จจริง

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.

สรุปคำพิพากษา

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.

คำกล่าวสำคัญ

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

Baroness Hale

การอ้างอิงภายหลัง

Followed

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

Related Content

Related Legislation