Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawAssociative discriminationDisability discriminationLatest NewsIndirect discrimination

Indirect associative discrimination upheld for the first time

by Alan Lewis 17 Sep 2021
by Alan Lewis 17 Sep 2021 Celia Ong / Shutterstock
Celia Ong / Shutterstock

Whilst employment tribunal decisions are not binding on other employment tribunals, it is worth noting the reasoning followed by the employment tribunal in the recent decision of Follows v Nationwide Building Society which has for the first time in UK law upheld a claim of indirect associative discrimination. Alan Lewis finds this case particularly relevant for employers trying to encourage workers back to the office

Before the decision in Follows, UK law recognised that claims could be made for direct associative discrimination, but not indirect associative discrimination.

Under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, dealing with direct discrimination, there is no requirement for the less favourable treatment to be because of a protected characteristic of the person who receives that treatment. The less favourable treatment can therefore be because of the characteristic of another person, such as somebody who the claimant associates with. An example is the case of Weathersfield v Sargent where an employee resigned because they did not want to comply with an instruction not to hire vehicles to Black or Asian customers. The Court of Appeal upheld the employment tribunal’s finding that the claimant (who was neither Black nor Asian) had been subjected to less favourable treatments on racial grounds.

By way of contrast, to establish indirect discrimination, section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 requires the claimant themselves to have the protected characteristic as well as suffering the less favourable treatment. Specifically, subsection 19 (1) says, “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s.”

The EU Directives that the Equality Act implemented into UK law do not require the claimant to have the protected characteristic. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided in Chez Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia Za Zashtita OT Diskriminatsia that associative discrimination could in principle extend to indirect discrimination. That case concerned race discrimination and the ECJ decided that the indirect discrimination provisions of the Race Directive applied regardless of the ethnic origin of the person who suffered the less favourable treatment.

Requirement for role to be office based was indirect disability discrimination by association

Because the definition of indirect discrimination the relevant Directives is almost identical to the definition used in the Race Directive, it means that under European law the decision of the ECJ in Chez is not limited to indirect race discrimination claims. It follows that a claimant does not have to have a protected characteristic in order to bring a claim for indirect discrimination. What they have to show is that they suffered a particular disadvantage in a similar way that a disadvantaged group did.

In the Follows case, the employee worked for the Nationwide Building Society as a senior lending manager. The Nationwide dismissed her on redundancy grounds. During her seven years of employment, Mrs Follows was employed as a homeworker. The reason she worked at home was because she had to care for her disabled mother. Her employer knew that Mrs Follows needed to work from home to care for her mother and it knew that her mother was disabled within the definition of the Equality Act. Even though Mrs Follows was based at home, she did attend the office on a couple of days each week.

Nationwide took a decision to reduce the number of senior lending managers and required all those who survived the redundancy process to be office based, because of staff supervision reasons and due to a change and the nature of the work. Throughout the redundancy consultation process Mrs Follows made it clear that she wished to keep her existing arrangements of working from home and attending the office a couple of days each week. Nevertheless, Nationwide dismissed her on redundancy grounds. Another employee, Mr Gregory, who was not disabled and was not a carer, also worked on a homeworker contract and he was treated in the same way as Mrs Follows and was dismissed.

Whilst Mrs Fellows’ claim before the employment tribunal for direct associative discrimination failed, because the correct comparator, Mr Gregory was treated in the same way, her claim for indirect associative discrimination succeeded. The tribunal decided that section 19 of the Equality Act must be read in a manner consistent with the ECJ’s judgement in Chez and therefore the reference to a “relevant protected characteristic of B’s” must be read so that it applies to employees who are associated with a person who has a relevant characteristic. The tribunal found that Nationwide had not taken reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage.

This decision is going to present employers with challenges, particularly where they are trying to get all staff to be office-based and some have caring responsibilities.

After the Brexit transition period, UK courts and tribunals will have to continue to interpret UK legislation in line with EU law, including Chez, save for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal which can depart from EU case law where it appears right to do so. Only time will tell whether or not those higher courts will follow the decision in Chez when faced with issues of indirect associative discrimination.

Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more human resources jobs

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

 

Alan Lewis

Alan Lewis is a partner with Constantine Law and regularly represents parties in the employment tribunal.

previous post
Warning over topical steroid cream withdrawal effects
next post
Proposals for day one right to request flexible working expected ‘shortly’

You may also like

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

EHRC opens consultation on updated code of practice

2 Oct 2024

Social worker awarded £154k discrimination payout

22 Aug 2024

Royal Mint HR director wins disability discrimination claim

29 Jul 2024

Non-disclosure agreements have ‘devastating impacts’ on people

1 Mar 2024

British Transport Police scraps annual fitness test

27 Feb 2024

Finance worker wins £32,000 after ‘hormonal’ comments

26 May 2023

Former Lacoste manager succeeds in discrimination claim at...

3 Feb 2023

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+