Editor's message: The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination in the workplace because of an employee's marriage or civil partner status.
As this legal protection historically developed to ensure that women could not be required to leave work on marrying, it applies to employees only if they are married or in a civil partnership. This means that single people, those who are living together but are not married or in a civil partnership, and those who are divorced or whose civil partnership has been dissolved, are not protected.
This protection means that, for example, you should not exclude employees from job opportunities or training based on assumptions that, because they are married or in a civil partnership, they would be less willing to travel or to work longer hours than a single person.
Qian Mou, employment law editor
Updated to include information on Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker, in which the EAT considered the employer's liability for victimisation by an agent surveillance company it had appointed.
In this week's podcast, we explore the steps that you can take to reduce the risk of having an indirectly discriminatory provision, criterion or practice. We also discuss what to take into account when deciding whether or not indirect discrimination can be justified.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT decision that survivors' pensions do not have to take into account civil partners' pension benefits accrued before the introduction of civil partnerships on 5 December 2005.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the Equality Act 2010 does not breach EU law by denying a couple in a civil partnership accrual of benefits to which married couples were entitled under a pension scheme.
Additional information on the law on marriage and civil partnership discrimination for local authority employers, including the public sector equality duty. To be read in conjunction with the general information on the law on marriage and civil partnership discrimination.
The employment tribunal held that the Equality Act 2010 failed to provide the required protection under EU law for a couple in a civil partnership who were denied accrual of benefits to which married couples were entitled under a pension scheme.
In Hawkins v Atex Group Ltd and others EAT/0302/11, the EAT held that the dismissal of an employee because she was in a close personal relationship with a particular person, which happened to take the form of marriage, did not amount to unlawful marriage discrimination.
In Dunn v Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management EAT/0531/10, the EAT held that less favourable treatment accorded to an employee on the ground that she was married to a particular person, rather than because of her marital status per se, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the ground of marriage.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to marriage and civil partnership discrimination.