UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

Justification of conduct

Produced by Tolley in association with
Employment Tax
Guidance

Justification of conduct

Produced by Tolley in association with
Employment Tax
Guidance
imgtext

Indirect discrimination occurs where a complainant shows that a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) applied to all employees puts or would put those sharing the complainant’s protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. The burden then shifts to the employer to defend itself by showing that the PCP is objectively justified. The employer must be able to show that the PCP:

  1. •

    is legal

  2. •

    is non-discriminatory

  3. •

    represents a real objective consideration

  4. •

    is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Such PCP must therefore be capable of objective justification; it must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This is different from direct discrimination which, with the exception of direct age discrimination (see below), can never be justified.

See the Prohibited conduct ― direct discrimination and Prohibited conduct ― indirect discrimination guidance notes.

What is proportionality?

There is a well-established four stage test for determining whether the means of achieving a legitimate aim are proportionate. The employer needs to decide whether:

  1. •

    the objective is sufficiently important

Access this article and thousands of others like it
free for 7 days with a trial of Tolley+™ Guidance.

Emma Bartlett
Emma Bartlett

Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP


Emma advises on all aspects of employment law including unlawful discrimination, whistleblowing, equal pay, unfair dismissal, breach of contract, restrictive covenants, protecting confidential information, boardroom disputes and claims under TUPE. She has experience in obtaining and executing interim injunctions for breach of confidentiality and/or restrictive covenant provisions. She also leads diversity issues for Charles Russell Speechlys employment team.   With a strong record in negotiating and resolving complex employment disputes, Emma is considered a skilled deal broker. She is a specialist in contentious discrimination matters and has significant experience in handling high value contentious claims for employers and senior individuals. Emma acts for employers, employees and trade unions. Her client base is broad, both in terms of the range of work and the sectors in which they operate. Amongst these clients are a number of growing, dynamic businesses (including UK start-ups), as well as long established financial institutions, and senior executives.   Emma speaks regularly on diversity issues, edits the diversity sections of Lawtel Employment Precedents and Company Policy Documents and certain diversity sections of Tolley Guidance Employment Tax online, and regularly contributes to article in HR and legal publications as well as comments in the national press on diversity issues.   Experience Successfully defended a tribunal claim of race and religious discrimination against a household name private members club. Added complications arose as the matter was reported in the press before judgment was given. An appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal was rejected. Advised and represented a large London retailer in relation to a multi-discrimination employment tribunal complaint (direct, indirect, victimisation and harassment based on race and religion). The claim was complicated by the variety of allegations and the worker's status; there were three preliminary hearings before a full merits hearing was listed. There were also four named Respondents to the claim. Successfully settled the action for a nominal sum, with agreement that all allegations were retracted and not repeated despite the action continuing against the other Respondents. Advised and negotiated service agreements for the senior management team of the seller on a multimillion pound share sale of a UK business. A major legal victory for a pilot employed by a household name airline, in a landmark case against the airline for indirect age discrimination. The decision has industry-wide ramifications for airlines and other organisations which provide a combination of long-term permanent health insurance or similar income protection payments via third party and self-insurance.

Powered by
  • 15 Nov 2022 16:15

Popular Articles

Associated companies ― from 1 April 2023

Associated companies ― from 1 April 2023Implications of associated companiesFrom 1 April 2023, the rate of corporation tax that a company is subject to depends on the level of its augmented profits. The rate of tax is based on a comparison of the company’s augmented profits against the corporation

22 Mar 2021 10:21 | Produced by Tolley Read more Read more

Income tax losses ― overview

Income tax losses ― overviewIncome tax losses can arise due to a number of reasons, but not all losses can be relieved against total income and some losses can only be set against certain types of component income. The table below is a summary of the main reliefs for income tax losses.Summary of

04 Mar 2021 12:19 | Produced by Tolley Read more Read more

Winding up a trust ― legal, administrative and compliance issues

Winding up a trust ― legal, administrative and compliance issuesOverviewWhen winding up a trust, there are legal formalities and compliance issues that need to be dealt with, as well as IHT and CGT consequences that flow from the termination. This guidance note considers when and how a trust comes

14 Jul 2020 14:01 | Produced by Tolley Read more Read more