Direct discrimination

New and updated

• Type:

  FAQs

  When can an individual bring a claim for direct race discrimination?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Can an employer defend a direct discrimination claim on the basis that any discrimination was unintentional?

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round up

  Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.

• Date:

  1 April 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Burden of proof guidelines revised

  In a hearing of three conjoined appeals (Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors and another v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, 18 February 2005), the Court of Appeal considers the guidelines established in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (EOR 118) and sets out revised guidance on the burden of proof provisions in the discrimination legislation.

• Date:

  25 March 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discrimination: Burden of proof finally reversed in direct discrimination claims

  In Igen Ltd & ors v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors & ors v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, the Court of Appeal holds that the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976, in order to implement the Burden of Proof Directive (97/80/EC), require a two-stage process to determine direct discrimination.

• Date:

  9 May 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: The comparison exercise in direct sex discrimination claims

  In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the House of Lords holds that in cases where a complainant alleges direct sex discrimination, the statutory comparison requires that all the circumstances that are relevant to the way the complainant was treated are the same as, or not materially different from, the circumstances of the comparator.

• Date:

  1 September 1990

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Gender-based criteria are directly discriminatory

  In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (14 June 1990) EOR33B, the House of Lords holds that the test for determining whether there has been direct discrimination is "would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?". It is not necessary for complainants to prove in addition that the subjective reason they were treated less favourably was because of their gender.

• Date:

  17 July 1990

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Lords approve "but for" test in direct discrimination cases

  In a sex discrimination case the crucial question is whether the complainant would have received the same treatment but for his or her sex.