Direct discrimination
Direct discrimination is easy to recognise. It occurs where an individual has been treated less favourably than another because they hold a protected characteristic, namely age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy or maternity, gender reassignment status, and/or religion or belief.
An employer or other organisation cannot provide a defence to such a claim once it has been established that they have directly discriminated against an individual.
In establishing less favourable treatment the ‘but for test’ is applied. This means that it must be proven that but for the individual’s characteristic, he/she would not have been subjected to that treatment.
Indirect discrimination
Indirect discrimination will occur if an employer or organisation applies a policy, condition or requirement across the board, which puts a person/people who hold one of the protected characteristics at a disadvantage.
An employer or organisation may have a defence if it can objectively justify that the discrimination is a proportionate, (i.e. there is no reasonable alternative), way of achieving a legitimate aim (e.g. genuine health and safety reasons). In order to utilise this defence, they would need to show clear evidence that it had conducted a balancing exercise between it’s business needs and the discriminatory effect and had given consideration to alternatives that might achieve the same result without being disadvantageous to the individual/individuals.
Failure to make reasonable adjustments
Employers and other organisations have a duty to make reasonable adjustments when a provision, criteria or practice/physical feature of their premises puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with others who are not disabled.
The duty is to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the individual being subjected to the disadvantage.
The aim of this duty is to ensure that a disabled person’s employer or organisation’s policies, practices and premises are adjusted as far as is reasonably possible to provide for them to be as close to the standard enjoyed by others without their disabilities.
The duty recognises that this should include the removal of physical and non physical barriers encountered by disabled individuals to enable them to engage in employment and access other services with as much ease as non disabled members of the workforce or community.
The test applied by the tribunal and the court is reasonableness. In gauging the reasonableness of a suggested adjustment to accommodate disabled employees or consumers, a number of factors including the nature of the organisation involved, their financial resources and the cost of the adjustment, will be considered. These factors will then be considered against the nature of the adjustment proposed and the extent of the disadvantage caused to the disabled individual due to the failure to implement the suggested amendment. The disadvantage will need to be proven to be more than minor or trivial.
Discrimination client feedback
"I’m genuinely grateful for all your hard work and dedication in closing my case. Thank you so much for your patience, guidance, and the care you’ve shown throughout the whole process. Having someone so supportive and understanding on my side has meant a great deal." - View from a satisfied client
"Thank you for your diligence and hard work in this matter. Your patience has been evident throughout and not once have I felt anything other than professionalism and empathy for which I’m very grateful." - View from a satisfied client
"Stephensons... have been professional and helpful throughout... they guided me through the whole process kept me informed at all times... a very big thank you to Abigail she was my main point of contact she was very helpful and empathetic with me and my case." - View from a satisfied client
"I would give them extra stars based on the fact that they managed to settle this so quickly without needing to take the matter through court, which is really surprising due to the high value of the claim. Unfortunately I can only give 5 stars. They actually made the process fun, they always kept me in the loop and even taught me a few things on the way!" - View from a satisfied client
"Thank you, sincerely, for being a critical part of this process - for your clarity, your compassion and your patience in dealing with both the law and me. I hope you can share in some quiet satisfaction that what you've contributed to isn’t just resolution - but resistance. Not loud, but principled. Not perfect, but forward." - View from a satisfied client
"Great combination of understanding and compassion with factual knowledge and rigorous, straight-talking advice and guidance - first class!" - View from a satisfied client