What is discrimination?
What is Discrimination?
The Act consolidates existing law into a single legal framework and while many of the concepts of discrimination remain the same as in previous equality legislation there are some areas that were not previously covered. This section describes the various types of discrimination and how they apply to the schools provisions.
Direct discrimination occurs when you treat a pupil less favourably than you treat (or would treat) another pupil because of a protected characteristic. So a very basic example would be refusing to admit a child to a school as a pupil because of their race, for example because they are Roma.
It is not possible to justify direct discrimination, so it will always be unlawful. There are however exceptions to the schools provisions that allow, for example, single-sex schools to only admit pupils of one sex without this being unlawful direct discrimination.
In order for someone to show that they have been directly discriminated against, they must compare what has happened to them to the treatment a person without their protected characteristic is receiving or would receive. So a gay pupil cannot claim that excluding them for fighting is direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation unless they can show that a heterosexual or bisexual pupil would not be excluded for fighting. A pupil does not need to find an actual person to compare their treatment with but can rely on a hypothetical person if they can show there is evidence that such a person would be treated differently.
There is no need for someone claiming direct discrimination because of racial segregation or pregnancy or maternity to find a person to compare themselves to:
- Racial segregation is deliberately separating people by race or colour or ethnic or national origin and will always be unlawful direct discrimination.
- To claim pregnancy or maternity discrimination a female pupil must show that she has been treated unfavourably because of her pregnancy or maternity and does not have to compare her treatment to the treatment of someone who was not pregnant or a new mother.
It is not direct discrimination against a male pupil to offer a female pupil special treatment in connection with her pregnancy or childbirth. It is not direct discrimination against a non-disabled pupil to treat a disabled pupil more favourably.
A female pupil is actively discouraged from undertaking a course in engineering by a teacher who tells her this is an unsuitable area of study for a female. This would be direct discrimination on the grounds of sex.
A pupil with Asperger’s Syndrome can sometimes act in a disruptive manner in class. The school does not take disciplinary action, but uses agreed strategies to manage his behaviour. A non-disabled pupil who is also disruptive in class is punished for his behaviour. This difference in treatment would not be direct discrimination against the non-disabled pupil.
Direct discrimination also occurs when you treat a pupil less favourably because of their association with another person who has a protected characteristic (other than pregnancy and maternity).
This might occur when you treat a pupil less favourably because their sibling, parent, carer or friend has a protected characteristic.
Direct discrimination also occurs when you treat a pupil less favourably because you mistakenly think that they have a protected characteristic.
It is discrimination to treat a woman (including a female pupil of any age) less favourably because she is or has been pregnant, has given birth in the last 26 weeks or is breastfeeding a baby who is 26 weeks or younger.
It is direct sex discrimination to treat a woman (including a female pupil of any age) less favourably because she is breastfeeding a child who is more than 26 weeks old.
Indirect discrimination occurs when you apply a provision, criterion or practice in the same way for all pupils or a particular pupil group, such as A-level physics students, but this has the effect of putting pupils sharing a protected characteristic within the general student group at a particular disadvantage. It doesn't matter that you did not intend to disadvantage the pupils with a particular protected characteristic in this way. What does matter is whether your action does or would disadvantage such pupils compared with pupils who do not share that characteristic.
‘Disadvantage’ is not defined in the Act but a rule of thumb is that a reasonable person would consider that disadvantage has occurred. It can take many different forms, such as denial of an opportunity or choice, deterrence, rejection or exclusion.
‘Provision’, ‘criterion’ or ‘practice’ are not defined in the Act but can be interpreted widely and include:
- arrangements (for example, for deciding who to admit)
- the way that education, or access to any benefit, service or facility is offered or provided
- one-off decisions
- proposals or directions to do something in a particular way.
They may be written out formally or they may just have developed as the school worked out the best way of achieving what it wanted to do. Indirect discrimination will occur if the following four conditions are met:
- You apply (or would apply) the provision, criterion or practice equally to all relevant pupils, including a particular pupil with a protected characteristic, and
- The provision, criterion or practice puts or would put pupils sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to relevant pupils who do not share that characteristic, and
- The provision, criteria, practice or rule puts or would put the particular pupil at that disadvantage, and
- You cannot show that the provision, criteria of practice is justified as a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'
A school requires male pupils to wear a cap as part of the school uniform. Although this requirement is applied equally to all pupils, it has the effect of excluding Sikh boys whose religion requires them to wear a turban. This would be indirect discrimination based on religion and belief as it is unlikely that the school would be able to justify this action.
To be legitimate the aim of the provision, criterion or practice must be legal and non-discriminatory and represent a real objective consideration. In the context of school education, examples of legitimate aims might include:
- Maintaining academic and other standards.
- Ensuring the health and safety and welfare of pupils.
Even if the aim is legitimate the means of achieving it must be proportionate. Proportionate means ‘appropriate and necessary’, but ‘necessary’ does not mean that the provision, criterion or practice is the only possible way of achieving the legitimate aim.
Although the financial cost of using a less discriminatory approach cannot, by itself, provide a justification, cost can be taken into account as part of the school’s justification, if there are other good reasons for adopting the chosen practice.
The more serious the disadvantage caused by the discriminatory provision, criterion or practice, the more convincing the justification must be.
In a case involving disability, if you have not complied with your duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments it will be difficult for you to show that the treatment was proportionate.
Discrimination arising from disability occurs when you treat a disabled pupil unfavourably because of something connected with their disability and cannot justify such treatment.
Discrimination arising from disability is different from direct discrimination. Direct discrimination occurs because of the protected characteristic of disability. For discrimination arising from disability, the motive for the treatment does not matter; the question is whether the disabled pupil has been treated unfavourably because of something connected with their disability.
Discrimination arising from disability is also different from indirect discrimination. There is no need to show that other people have been affected alongside the individual disabled pupil or for the disabled pupil to compare themselves with anyone else.
Discrimination arising from disability will occur if the following three conditions are met:
- you treat a disabled pupil unfavourably, that is putting them at a disadvantage, even if this was not your intention, and
- this treatment is because of something connected with the disabled pupil’s disability (which could be the result, effect or outcome of that disability) such as an inability to walk unaided or disability-related behaviour, and
- you cannot justify the treatment by showing that it is ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This is explained above.
A pupil with cerebral palsy who is a wheelchair user is told she will be unable to attend a school trip to a local theatre putting on a production of a play she is currently studying in English, because the building is not wheelchair accessible. The pupil and her parents are aware that the play is also on at a theatre in a neighbouring city which is accessible but the school does not investigate this option. This is likely to be discrimination arising from a disability.
If you can show that you
- did not know that the disabled pupil had the disability in question, and
- could not reasonably have been expected to know that the disabled pupil had the disability
then the unfavourable treatment would not amount to unlawful discrimination arising from disability. If your agent (someone who undertakes tasks on your behalf) or employee knows of a pupil’s disability, you will not usually be able to claim that you do not know of the disability.
A pupil tells the school secretary that she has diabetes and that she needs to carry biscuits to eat when her blood sugar levels fall. A teacher has no information about her disability and refuses to allow pupils to bring food into the classroom. The pupil has a hypoglycaemic attack. In this case, the school is unlikely to be able to argue that it did not know about her condition.
By acting quickly to identify and put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils, you can often avoid discrimination arising from disability, although there may be cases where an adjustment is unrelated to the unfavourable treatment in question.
If you fail to make an appropriate reasonable adjustment, it is likely to be very difficult for you to argue that unfavourable treatment is justified.
Last Updated: 17 Sep 2015