Discrimination & Harassment.

Yes — the Equality Act 2010 covers discrimination throughout the employment relationship, including at the recruitment stage. Advertising a role in a way that discourages applicants with a protected characteristic, asking discriminatory questions at interview, or refusing to shortlist a candidate because of a protected characteristic are all potentially unlawful. Job applicants who are discriminated against during recruitment can bring a claim in the employment tribunal even though they were never employed — there is no qualifying period of employment required. Discrimination in recruitment is particularly difficult to prove because employers rarely admit the real reason for their decisions, but circumstantial evidence — such as the profile of those shortlisted or appointed — can be relevant.

Yes — associative discrimination is well-established: you can claim discrimination if you are treated less favourably because of someone else's protected characteristic — for example, being treated adversely because you have a disabled child or a spouse of a particular religion. Perceptive discrimination also applies: being discriminated against because the employer wrongly believes you have a protected characteristic. On third-party harassment — being harassed by customers, clients, or contractors rather than colleagues — this was removed from statute in 2013 but has been reinstated by the Employment Rights Act 2025 and will take effect from October 2026. From that date, employers will be liable for third-party harassment unless they took all reasonable steps to prevent it.

A discrimination claim begins with notifying ACAS and going through early conciliation — a free process in which ACAS attempts to help the parties reach a settlement. Early conciliation can now last up to 12 weeks. If conciliation fails, the claimant submits a claim form (ET1) to the employment tribunal within the time limit. The respondent employer submits a response (ET3). The tribunal may hold preliminary hearings on jurisdiction or strike-out applications before proceeding to a final hearing, which can last several days for complex discrimination cases. Most discrimination claims settle before a final hearing. The process from claim to final hearing typically takes twelve to twenty-four months depending on complexity and tribunal capacity.

The Equality Act 2010 applies uniformly across England and Wales — employment discrimination law is not devolved. However, Wales has additional public sector equality obligations through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which requires Welsh public bodies to consider equality and sustainability in their decision-making. Welsh public bodies are also subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act, as are English bodies, but Welsh Ministers have made specific regulations under that duty that apply to Welsh public authorities. For private sector employment, the rules are identical across England and Wales. If you work for a Welsh public body and believe discriminatory decisions were affected by failures under the Welsh-specific duties, that may be relevant to your claim.

The current time limit is three months less one day from the act complained of — or the last act in a continuing course of discriminatory conduct. This is a strict deadline. Before submitting a claim you must notify ACAS and go through early conciliation, which pauses the limitation clock for up to 12 weeks. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will extend most tribunal time limits from three to six months, but this change does not take effect until October 2026. Until then, the three-month rule applies. Given the tight current deadline, taking legal advice as soon as possible after any discriminatory act — and not waiting to see how an internal grievance resolves — is essential.

Objective justification is a defence available to employers in indirect discrimination claims and in age discrimination claims. An employer must show that the provision, criterion, or practice that causes the disadvantage is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The aim must be a real business need — not simply cost or administrative convenience alone. The means must be proportionate — going no further than necessary to achieve the aim, and the discriminatory impact must be weighed against the benefit to the employer. Tribunals scrutinise justification arguments carefully: a legitimate aim poorly implemented, or one that could be achieved by less discriminatory means, will not succeed as a defence. Objective justification is not available as a defence to direct discrimination.

The Equality Act 2010 sets out nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Discrimination, harassment, or victimisation related to any of these characteristics is unlawful in the workplace — covering recruitment, terms of employment, promotion, training, dismissal, and everything in between. The protections apply to employees, workers, and in many cases job applicants. Some characteristics — particularly disability — attract additional rights, such as the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Understanding which characteristic is engaged is the starting point for any discrimination claim.

Discrimination and harassment compensation has no statutory cap — unlike unfair dismissal. It covers financial loss (lost earnings, future loss, and pension), injury to feelings, and in some cases personal injury where psychiatric harm is established. Injury to feelings awards follow the Vento bands, updated periodically by the Employment Appeal Tribunal: lower band for less serious cases, middle band for serious cases, and upper band for the most serious — currently ranging from a few thousand pounds to over £50,000 for the most severe cases. Aggravated damages may be awarded where the employer's conduct was high-handed or oppressive. From October 2026, a compensation uplift of up to 25% may apply where an employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments applies specifically to disability discrimination. Where a provision, criterion, practice, or physical feature of the workplace puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people, the employer is required to take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage. What is reasonable depends on the nature of the adjustment, its cost and practicality, and the size and resources of the employer. There is no exhaustive list — reasonable adjustments can include changes to working hours, provision of equipment, reallocation of duties, or a phased return to work after illness. The duty is anticipatory for physical features and reactive for individuals — employers should not wait to be asked. Failure to make a reasonable adjustment is itself a form of disability discrimination.

Harassment under the Equality Act 2010 is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. The conduct does not have to be intentional — the effect on the recipient is what matters, assessed objectively. A single incident can amount to harassment if it is sufficiently serious. Sexual harassment — unwanted conduct of a sexual nature — is treated as a separate and particularly serious form under the Act. From October 2024, employers have been under a proactive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace; from October 2026, that duty strengthens to all reasonable steps and extends to third-party harassment across all protected characteristics.

Positive action is permissible under the Equality Act 2010 where an employer reasonably believes that people with a particular protected characteristic are underrepresented or disadvantaged in the workforce. It allows — but does not require — employers to take steps to address that disadvantage, including targeted recruitment campaigns or training. Where two candidates are equally qualified, an employer can lawfully prefer the candidate from an underrepresented group under the tie-break provisions of the Act. However, positive action is not the same as positive discrimination — an employer cannot simply give preference to a candidate because of a protected characteristic if they are less qualified than another candidate. The line between lawful positive action and unlawful positive discrimination is important and sometimes narrow.

Direct discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic — for example, not being promoted because of race or being paid less because of sex. Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral policy, rule, or practice puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage compared to others — for example, a requirement to work full-time that disproportionately disadvantages women. Direct discrimination cannot generally be justified; indirect discrimination can be if the employer can show the provision, criterion, or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Both forms are unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, but the legal analysis and available defences differ significantly.

Victimisation occurs when someone is treated badly because they have made or supported a complaint of discrimination, or because it is believed they might do so. For example, being passed over for promotion after raising a grievance about race discrimination is victimisation. It is distinct from harassment — harassment involves unwanted conduct creating a hostile environment; victimisation is a detriment suffered as a result of protected activity. Both are unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. Victimisation claims are particularly important because they protect the integrity of the complaints process — without them, employees would be deterred from raising legitimate concerns.