Topics

Direct discrimination

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 May 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Guidance on proving discrimination

    In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (27 February 2003), the House of Lords holds that an employee is subjected to a "detriment" for the purposes of discrimination law if a reasonable employee might feel they have been placed at a disadvantage with regard to the circumstances in which they work.

  • Date:
    18 March 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case round-up: sex discrimination and ballots for strike action

    This week's case roundup from Eversheds, covering sex discrimination and ballots for strike action.

  • Date:
    1 April 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    Hypothetical comparator required

    In Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health (6 December 2001), the Court of Appeal rules that where there is no actual comparator for a discrimination complainant to compare their treatment with, the tribunal must construct a hypothetical comparator.

  • Date:
    1 March 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    Race discrimination: Process of reasoning required in determining complaints of direct discrimination

    An employment tribunal failed to meet the minimum requirements for a reasoned decision in finding that an employer had unlawfully discriminated against two employees on racial grounds, holds the EAT in Cromwell Hospital v Francis and another.

  • Date:
    15 January 1997
    Type:
    Law reports

    Race discrimination: Additional guidance on proving direct discrimination

    In Qureshi v (1) Victoria University of Manchester (2) Brazier, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal wrongly adopted a "piecemeal approach" in determining whether the less favourable treatment complained of by an employee against his employer and his boss was on the ground of his race.

  • Date:
    1 September 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    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:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Date:
    1 July 1989
    Type:
    Law reports

    Meaning of direct discrimination

    In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (26.4.89) EOR26A, the Court of Appeal holds that a policy of not charging those over state pension age admission to a swimming pool did not treat a man aged 61 less favourably on grounds of his sex.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct discrimination.