The Supreme Court has held that claimants are not required in indirect discrimination claims to explain why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts, or would put, the affected group at a particular disadvantage.
The Supreme Court has held that an incremental pay structure that put Muslim chaplains in the prison service at a disadvantage compared to their Christian colleagues was indirectly discriminatory, but was justified.
David Malamatenios is a partner and Sandra Martins, Krishna Santra and Colin Makin are senior associates at
Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that it is necessary in indirect discrimination claims for the claimant to show why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) has disadvantaged the group and the individual claimant.
In Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the burden of proof in indirect sex discrimination cases should be approached in the same way irrespective of whether a case is brought under Article 141 (previously 119) of the EC Treaty of Rome, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equal Pay Act 1970.