Equality Act 2010: 2026 Employer Duties & Discrimination Law

The Equality Act 2010 remains one of the most operationally significant pieces of UK employment legislation for employers because it regulates not only overt discriminatory decisions but also routine HR practices that unintentionally disadvantage protected groups. In practice, most Equality Act exposure does not come from “bad actors”. It comes from inconsistent management behaviour, poorly designed policies, weak evidence trails and HR decisions made under time pressure without a defensible rationale.

What this article is about
This is a compliance-grade employer guide to the Equality Act 2010, written for HR professionals and business owners who need certainty, defensible decisions and clear risk controls. It explains what the law requires, where employers typically get caught out, what tribunals scrutinise and what you should build into your HR strategy to reduce cost, enforcement risk, reputational exposure and operational disruption. For wider context, see our UK employment law guidance.

Section A: What does the Equality Act 2010 legally require employers to do?

This section answers the question most employers are really asking: what are my actual legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and how do they translate into HR decisions and day-to-day management? The Act is not a general “fairness” code. It is a statutory framework that prohibits specific types of conduct in defined workplace contexts. Compliance therefore depends on understanding (1) when the Act applies, (2) what conduct is prohibited, and (3) what your organisation must do to prevent breaches and defend decisions.

Public sector employers are also subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149, which imposes additional proactive equality obligations.

1. Which workplace decisions are regulated by the Equality Act 2010?

For employers, the Equality Act 2010 applies across the full employment lifecycle and captures both formal HR processes and informal decision-making. The practical point is simple: if a decision affects someone’s access to work, terms, progression, treatment at work or exit from the organisation, you should assume Equality Act risk is in play and work backwards to ensure the decision is lawful and evidenced. For a broader overview of the legal framework, see our guide to employment discrimination law.

The areas where employers most frequently face Equality Act exposure include recruitment and selection, job adverts and role requirements, pay and bonus decisions, promotion and performance ratings, sickness absence management, flexible working decisions, disciplinary action, grievances, redundancy scoring and dismissal. Claims often arise where the employer believes it is applying a neutral policy consistently but has not tested the policy’s impact on a protected group, has not considered alternatives or has failed to document a rational and proportionate explanation.

Employer action point: treat Equality Act compliance as a decision-control system, not a training topic. Your HR strategy should specify which decisions require (a) objective criteria, (b) consistency controls and (c) a written rationale that could stand up in a tribunal.

What happens if you get it wrong: discrimination compensation is uncapped, claims consume management time, disclosure can expose internal communications, and inconsistent decision-making can trigger multiple linked claims (discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal).

2. Does the Equality Act impose a general duty of fairness?

No. Employers regularly make decisions that feel “unfair” to individuals but are not unlawful under the Equality Act. The legal question is narrower: did the employer engage in prohibited conduct because of a protected characteristic, or apply a provision, criterion or practice that disadvantaged a protected group without lawful justification, or fail to meet disability-specific duties?

This distinction matters for risk management. If HR teams approach the Equality Act as a moral or cultural framework, compliance tends to drift into subjective discussions about “fairness”. The law requires a more disciplined approach: identify the legal risk category, identify the protected characteristic in play (if any), apply the correct legal test and retain evidence showing why the decision was made and why it was lawful.

Employer action point: build a habit of labelling the legal issue before deciding the outcome. For example, “indirect discrimination risk” triggers an evidence-led justification analysis. “Disability adjustments risk” triggers a documented adjustments process, not an attendance policy default.

What happens if you get it wrong: the most costly outcomes often come from employers defending the “fairness” of a decision rather than addressing the legal test. Tribunals will not rescue an employer who acted in good faith but applied the wrong framework or failed to evidence justification or adjustments.

3. Who is legally protected and when does the duty arise?

Protection is not limited to employees. The Equality Act can apply to job applicants, workers, employees, agency staff in certain contexts and, critically, to individuals who are treated unfavourably because they are perceived to have a protected characteristic or because of their association with someone who does.

This expands employer risk in two ways. First, recruitment processes and pre-employment communications are high exposure, particularly where selection criteria are loosely defined or where interview notes reveal subjective impressions. Second, perception and association mean you can face liability even if the individual does not in fact have the protected characteristic the decision-maker thought they did. The legal trigger is the decision-maker’s reason for the treatment, not the objective truth of the characteristic.

Employers also need to recognise that Equality Act duties can arise without a formal complaint being made. Once a protected characteristic issue is “in play”, the organisation needs to act in a way that would be defensible if the matter later escalates. For disability, employers should also assume that duties can arise where the employer knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, the individual is disabled. In practice, this means HR cannot hide behind “we were not told” if the organisation’s own records, absence patterns or occupational health reports indicate a likely disability.

Employer action point: design your HR systems to surface protected characteristic risk early. That means structured recruitment scoring, consistent performance standards, disability-aware absence processes and clear escalation routes when managers identify a potential protected characteristic issue. This should be underpinned by effective workplace policies and procedures that managers are expected to follow.

What happens if you get it wrong: you will typically face not a single allegation but a cluster. A poorly handled concern about disability, pregnancy or race can quickly become an adjustments claim plus discrimination plus victimisation if the individual is then treated differently after raising concerns.

Section A summary
The Equality Act 2010 requires employers to control legal risk in everyday HR decisions, not just avoid obvious discriminatory behaviour. The Act does not create a general duty to be fair. It prohibits specific forms of conduct connected to protected characteristics and, in disability cases, it also imposes positive obligations such as making reasonable adjustments. Compliance therefore depends on disciplined decision-making: identify when Equality Act risk is engaged, apply the correct legal test, record the rationale and ensure managers operate within consistent, auditable frameworks. The commercial reality is that weak processes and poor evidence are what turn manageable workplace issues into uncapped tribunal exposure.

Section B: What are “protected characteristics” and how do they create legal risk for employers?

This section addresses a common but dangerous employer assumption: that protected characteristics are simply a list to be memorised, rather than a risk framework that affects how HR decisions must be made. In practice, Equality Act claims rarely turn on whether a characteristic exists. They turn on whether the employer understood how that characteristic interacted with its policies, evidence and decision-making process.

1. What are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?

The Equality Act 2010 identifies nine protected characteristics under section 4:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

From a legal compliance perspective, the list itself is less important than how protection operates. Protection is not uniform across all characteristics, and the legal tests differ depending on the type of conduct alleged. Employers who treat all characteristics as if they create the same obligations often expose themselves to unnecessary risk or apply the wrong legal framework.

Employer action point: HR policies and manager training should distinguish between characteristics that trigger absolute prohibitions (for example, direct discrimination), those that permit justification (for example, indirect discrimination) and those that impose positive duties (in particular, disability).

What happens if you get it wrong: misapplying the legal test is one of the most common reasons employers lose otherwise defensible cases. Tribunals do not allow employers to “correct” the framework after the fact.

2. Why protected characteristics are a decision-making risk, not just a compliance list

Protected characteristics create risk because they limit how far employers can rely on discretion, assumptions or “common sense” judgments. Once a decision is connected to a protected characteristic, even indirectly, the employer will often need to explain and justify its actions with evidence.

For example:

• A neutral attendance policy may be lawful in principle but unlawful in application if it disadvantages disabled employees and reasonable adjustments were not considered.
• A redundancy scoring matrix may appear objective but still be indirectly discriminatory if criteria disproportionately disadvantage older workers without justification.
• A promotion decision may expose the employer to claims even where the successful candidate is objectively strong, if the employer cannot explain why the unsuccessful candidate with a protected characteristic was treated differently.

Employer action point: when protected characteristics are engaged, outcomes matter less than process. Employers should be able to show how decisions were reached, what alternatives were considered and why the chosen approach was proportionate.

What happens if you get it wrong: tribunals regularly accept that employers had legitimate business aims, but still find discrimination because the employer failed to evidence proportionality, consider alternatives or apply criteria consistently.

3. How perception and association expand employer liability

One of the most underestimated risks under the Equality Act 2010 is that protection is not limited to individuals who actually possess a protected characteristic.

Discrimination by perception arises where a person is treated less favourably because the decision-maker believes they have a protected characteristic, even if that belief is wrong.

Discrimination by association arises where a person is treated unfavourably because of their connection to someone who has a protected characteristic, such as a disabled child, an elderly parent or a partner of a different race.

These provisions matter operationally because they mean:

• You do not need to “know for certain” that someone has a protected characteristic to trigger liability if decision-makers act on assumptions.
• Casual remarks, informal discussions or unguarded communications can later become evidence of the reason for a decision.
• Avoiding questions is not a defence if the organisation’s actions show it relied on untested assumptions.

Employer action point: managers should base decisions on defined criteria and documented evidence, not assumptions about personal circumstances. HR should challenge unexplained changes in treatment that coincide with known or suspected protected characteristic issues.

What happens if you get it wrong: perception and association cases often succeed because employers cannot rebut the inference of discrimination once assumptions are exposed in emails, messages or witness evidence.

4. Where protection is narrower than employers expect

Not all protected characteristics operate in the same way, and this is a frequent source of employer error. Some protections are legally narrower, and employers need to understand the limits as well as the duties.

For example, protection relating to marriage and civil partnership is limited to direct discrimination only. There is no protection from indirect discrimination or harassment on this ground.

Pregnancy and maternity protection also operates differently from sex discrimination and is time-specific in employment contexts. Religion or belief protection can include philosophical beliefs, but only where those beliefs satisfy established legal criteria.

Employer action point: do not assume that a protected characteristic automatically triggers every form of protection. HR teams should understand which legal routes are actually available before responding to allegations, redesigning policies or making operational concessions.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers sometimes concede points unnecessarily or adopt overly cautious approaches that undermine operational effectiveness because they misunderstand the scope of protection.

5. Disability as the highest-risk protected characteristic for employers

From a claims and cost perspective, disability creates the greatest exposure for employers under the Equality Act. This is because disability discrimination includes additional statutory duties and disability-specific causes of action, not just prohibitions. For a deeper overview of risk types, see our guidance on disability discrimination.

For legal accuracy, disability under the Equality Act generally involves a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Key risk features include:

• the duty to make reasonable adjustments
• protection from discrimination arising from disability
• the “knew or ought reasonably to have known” knowledge test
• the interaction between absence management, performance management and capability processes

Disability cases frequently arise where employers apply standard procedures rigidly, rely on absence triggers or fail to revisit adjustments as circumstances change.

Employer action point: disability should be treated as a specialist compliance area, not a subset of general equality training. HR processes should build in discretion points, review triggers and appropriate occupational health input where needed.

What happens if you get it wrong: disability claims often succeed even where the employer acted consistently, because consistency is not a defence where the law requires individualised consideration and reasonable adjustments.

Section B summary
Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are not simply categories of people to avoid treating unfairly. They are legal triggers that change how employers must make, justify and evidence decisions. Risk arises when employers apply neutral policies without testing impact, rely on assumptions about individuals or fail to distinguish between different types of protection. From a commercial perspective, the most costly Equality Act claims typically stem from weak process discipline rather than intentional discrimination. Employers who understand how protected characteristics interact with decision-making are far better placed to manage risk, defend claims and maintain operational control.

Section C: What conduct is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 — and how do employers breach it in practice?

This section addresses the point where most employer risk crystallises: what exactly counts as unlawful conduct under the Equality Act 2010, and how do otherwise well-intentioned organisations end up breaching it? The Act does not prohibit all unfavourable treatment. It prohibits specific forms of conduct, each with its own legal test. Employers get into trouble when they apply the wrong test, overlook a disability-specific duty or assume that consistency alone will protect them.

1. What is direct discrimination and why intent does not matter

Direct discrimination occurs where an employer treats someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic. This is the simplest concept legally and the hardest to defend operationally. There is no justification defence for direct discrimination (except for age in limited circumstances), and the employer’s motive or good faith is irrelevant. The only question is whether the protected characteristic materially influenced the treatment.

In practice, direct discrimination risk arises most often in recruitment, promotion and dismissal decisions where subjective judgment plays a role. Casual comments, informal discussions or assumptions about “fit”, availability or future commitment can later be relied on as evidence of the reason for the decision. Where a comparator exists, tribununals will scrutinise why one individual was treated differently from another in materially similar circumstances.

Employer action point: direct discrimination risk is reduced through structured decision-making. Use defined criteria, avoid informal scoring, and ensure that decision-makers can articulate reasons that are wholly unrelated to protected characteristics.

What happens if you get it wrong: claims are difficult to defend, compensation is uncapped and reputational damage is often immediate. Where dismissal is involved, the employer may also face an automatically unfair dismissal claim without the usual qualifying service requirements.

2. When indirect discrimination arises from neutral policies and practices

Indirect discrimination arises where an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that is neutral on its face but puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to others. Unlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination can be lawful if the employer can show that the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

From a risk perspective, indirect discrimination is where many employers fail. Organisations often assume that because a policy applies to everyone, it must be lawful. Tribunals focus instead on impact and justification. Attendance thresholds, shift patterns, qualification requirements, working hours and redundancy scoring criteria are all common sources of indirect discrimination claims.

Employer action point: whenever a policy is applied rigidly, ask whether it disadvantages a protected group and whether the business aim could be achieved in a less discriminatory way. Evidence matters. Employers should be able to explain why the aim is legitimate and why the chosen approach is proportionate.

What happens if you get it wrong: tribunals frequently accept that employers had a genuine business aim but still find discrimination because the employer failed to consider alternatives, assess impact or gather evidence before acting.

3. Harassment and the risk created by workplace culture

Harassment occurs where a person is subjected to unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (including conduct of a sexual nature) that has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Importantly, conduct can amount to harassment by effect, even if no offence was intended.

Employers are exposed to harassment claims not only through overt misconduct but also through tolerance of inappropriate behaviour, failure to act on complaints or inconsistent enforcement of standards. Jokes, comments, social media activity and informal “banter” are frequently relied on in tribunal proceedings, particularly where managers are involved. For practical guidance, see our resource on harassment at work.

Employer action point: harassment risk is controlled through clear behavioural standards, prompt investigation of concerns and consistent enforcement. Training alone is not enough. Employers must be able to show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment if they are to rely on statutory defences.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers can be vicariously liable for harassment by employees and, in some circumstances, third parties. Failure to act can escalate a single incident into systemic liability.

4. Victimisation and why retaliation claims escalate disputes

Victimisation occurs where an individual is subjected to a detriment because they have done a protected act, such as making or supporting a discrimination complaint. Unlike harassment, victimisation does not require a comparator and does not depend on the validity of the original complaint.

Victimisation claims often arise after an employer believes the underlying discrimination issue has been resolved. Changes in tone, exclusion from opportunities, increased scrutiny or adverse treatment following a complaint can all form the basis of a claim.

Employer action point: once an Equality Act issue has been raised, all subsequent decisions affecting that individual should be treated as high-risk and carefully documented. Managers should be instructed not to alter treatment unless objectively justified and recorded.

What happens if you get it wrong: victimisation claims are often easier to prove than discrimination claims and can significantly increase compensation and reputational harm.

5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments: a distinct and ongoing duty

For disability, the Equality Act goes further than prohibiting unfavourable treatment. Employers have a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage by workplace arrangements, physical features or lack of auxiliary aids. For practical detail, see our guidance on reasonable adjustments.

This duty requires employers to consider adjustments proactively and to review them as circumstances change. Applying standard procedures without modification is a common source of liability. The duty may be triggered where the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that the individual is disabled and at a substantial disadvantage.

Employer action point: treat reasonable adjustments as a process, not a one-off decision. Document discussions, seek occupational health input where appropriate and review adjustments regularly.

What happens if you get it wrong: failure to make reasonable adjustments is one of the most common and costly Equality Act claims, particularly where absence management or performance processes are involved.

6. Discrimination arising from disability and the “something arising” trap

Discrimination arising from disability occurs where a disabled person is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, and the treatment cannot be justified. This provision catches employers who discipline, dismiss or penalise employees for behaviour or absence linked to disability without proper analysis.

Employer action point: before taking action linked to performance, conduct or attendance, consider whether the issue arises from disability and whether adjustments or alternatives have been explored. If the organisation relies on justification, it should be able to show that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, supported by evidence.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers often lose these claims because they focus on the conduct itself rather than its cause and fail to evidence justification.

Section C summary
Unlawful conduct under the Equality Act 2010 extends well beyond overt discrimination. Employers most often breach the Act through neutral policies applied without impact assessment, failure to manage disability-related duties and reactive decision-making following complaints. Each category of prohibited conduct has a distinct legal test, and applying the wrong test is a frequent cause of liability. From a risk management perspective, lawful outcomes depend on disciplined processes, evidence-led justification and early identification of protected characteristic issues, rather than good intentions or consistency alone.

Section D: How does the Equality Act 2010 apply across the employee lifecycle — and where do claims most commonly arise?

This section addresses a core employer concern: where, in real operational terms, Equality Act risk arises during the employee lifecycle, and how routine HR decisions turn into tribunal claims. While the Act applies at all stages of employment, claims are not evenly distributed. They cluster around points where discretion is exercised, evidence is weak or decisions are made under pressure.

1. Recruitment and selection: where risk begins before employment starts

Equality Act duties apply from the earliest stages of recruitment. Job adverts, role criteria, shortlisting decisions and interview conduct are all regulated. Many employers underestimate recruitment risk because the individual is not yet an employee, but recruitment discrimination claims are common and often easier to prove due to weak documentation or subjective decision-making. For an overview of common pitfalls, see our guidance on recruitment discrimination.

Risk frequently arises where job requirements are loosely defined, overstated or not objectively necessary. Requirements relating to years of experience, working hours, physical capability or “cultural fit” can indirectly discriminate unless they are genuinely required and proportionate. Informal interview notes, subjective scoring or unguarded comments can later be relied on to establish the reason for rejection.

Employer action point: recruitment processes should be designed around objective, role-related criteria, with structured scoring and retained records. HR should ensure that decision-makers understand recruitment communications and notes are discoverable evidence.

What happens if you get it wrong: recruitment discrimination claims can result in uncapped compensation and reputational harm, particularly where patterns emerge suggesting systemic bias.

2. Pay, benefits and grading decisions

Pay decisions are a significant Equality Act risk area, particularly where discretion is exercised without clear frameworks. Differences in starting salaries, bonuses, allowances or grading can give rise to discrimination claims if employers cannot explain the basis for disparity. While equal pay claims follow a distinct statutory route, pay-related decisions can still engage Equality Act discrimination principles.

Risk is heightened where decisions are justified informally by market pressures, negotiation outcomes or historical arrangements without documentary support. Over time, these disparities can compound and become difficult to defend.

Employer action point: implement structured pay frameworks, document rationales for exceptions and periodically audit outcomes for disproportionate impact on protected groups.

What happens if you get it wrong: pay-related claims can be costly, long-running and damaging to employee relations, even where discrimination was not intended.

3. Performance management, discipline and capability

Performance and disciplinary processes are among the most common sources of Equality Act claims because they combine subjective judgment with potential protected characteristic issues. Disability, pregnancy, age and religion are particularly relevant in this context.

Risk arises where performance concerns are addressed without considering whether underlying issues relate to disability, health conditions or pregnancy-related factors. Applying standard targets or conduct expectations without adjustment can lead to claims of discrimination arising from disability or failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Employer action point: when performance issues emerge, pause to assess whether a protected characteristic may be engaged and whether adjustments or alternative approaches are required. Managers should document reasoning and follow HR guidance consistently.

What happens if you get it wrong: tribunals often accept that performance concerns were genuine but still find discrimination due to procedural failures or lack of reasonable adjustments.

4. Absence management and flexible working

Absence management is a high-risk area, particularly where disability, pregnancy or caring responsibilities are involved. Trigger-based absence policies can indirectly discriminate or amount to discrimination arising from disability if applied rigidly.

Flexible working decisions can also give rise to indirect discrimination, particularly in relation to sex or disability, if requests are refused without proper consideration of impact and alternatives. For practical context, see our guidance on flexible working requests.

Employer action point: absence and flexible working policies should include discretion points and review mechanisms. Decisions should be based on individual circumstances and supported by evidence, such as occupational health input where appropriate.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers frequently lose claims where they relied on policy thresholds without considering the legal context or individual impact.

5. Promotion, training and progression opportunities

Promotion and access to development opportunities can give rise to discrimination claims where criteria are unclear or where decisions rely heavily on managerial discretion. Protected characteristics such as age, sex and race commonly feature in these cases.

Risk arises where selection criteria are subjective, where informal sponsorship influences outcomes or where opportunities are not transparently advertised. Over time, patterns of exclusion can emerge, increasing both legal and reputational risk.

Employer action point: ensure that progression opportunities are clearly defined, fairly advertised and supported by objective criteria. Monitor outcomes for disproportionate impact.

What happens if you get it wrong: claims may allege both individual discrimination and broader systemic issues, increasing complexity and cost.

6. Redundancy exercises and restructuring

Redundancy situations are a frequent trigger for Equality Act claims because they involve scoring, selection and dismissal decisions. Criteria relating to attendance, flexibility or performance can indirectly discriminate against protected groups if not carefully designed and applied. For common risk scenarios, see our guidance on redundancy discrimination.

Employers often focus on unfair dismissal risk and overlook discrimination exposure, particularly where disabled employees, older workers or those on maternity leave are affected. Certain categories, such as employees on maternity leave, have enhanced statutory protections during redundancy selection.

Employer action point: redundancy criteria should be reviewed for discriminatory impact before application. Adjustments may be required to ensure scores reflect role-related factors rather than disadvantage linked to protected characteristics.

What happens if you get it wrong: discrimination claims in redundancy situations can proceed alongside unfair dismissal claims and attract uncapped compensation.

7. Dismissal and exit decisions

Dismissal decisions that involve or are influenced by protected characteristics can lead to both discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal claims. Even where dismissal is justified on capability or conduct grounds, failure to follow Equality Act-compliant processes can undermine the defence. For crossover risk, see our guidance on unfair dismissal.

Risk is particularly acute where dismissals follow complaints, sickness absence or requests for adjustments, giving rise to victimisation or disability-related claims.

Employer action point: treat dismissal decisions involving protected characteristics as high-risk and ensure legal tests are applied correctly, with contemporaneous evidence retained.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers may face multiple claims arising from a single dismissal, significantly increasing exposure.

Section D summary
Equality Act risk is not confined to isolated incidents of overt discrimination. It arises throughout the employee lifecycle wherever discretion, policy application and evidence intersect. Recruitment, performance management, absence handling, redundancy and dismissal are the points at which employers most commonly face claims. From a strategic perspective, reducing Equality Act exposure requires embedding legal awareness into lifecycle decision-making, designing policies that anticipate protected characteristic issues and ensuring managers act within structured, defensible frameworks.

Section E: When can unequal treatment be lawful under the Equality Act 2010?

This section addresses one of the most commercially important employer questions: are there circumstances where treating people differently is lawful, and how far employers can rely on business justification without creating Equality Act exposure. The Act does not impose absolute equality of treatment in all cases. However, the circumstances in which unequal treatment is permitted are narrow, tightly regulated and frequently misunderstood.

1. Occupational requirements: when a protected characteristic can lawfully be required

The Equality Act permits employers to apply an occupational requirement where having a particular protected characteristic is genuinely necessary for a role and the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is a strict test. Employers must show that the requirement is intrinsic to the role itself, not merely desirable or convenient.

In practice, occupational requirements arise rarely and are most commonly relevant in roles involving personal services, privacy, authenticity or religious context. Even then, employers must consider whether the aim can be achieved through less discriminatory means. Broad or blanket exclusions are unlikely to be defensible.

Employer action point: occupational requirements should never be assumed. They should be identified in advance, justified in writing and reviewed regularly, with HR oversight before being applied.

What happens if you get it wrong: misusing occupational requirements frequently results in findings of direct discrimination, which are difficult to defend and attract uncapped compensation.

2. Objective justification and indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination may be lawful if the employer can demonstrate that the provision, criterion or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This requires a balancing exercise between business need and discriminatory impact. Tribunals will assess both the importance of the aim and whether the measure is appropriate and necessary.

Legitimate aims can include operational efficiency, workforce planning, service delivery or health and safety. Cost alone is rarely sufficient, although cost combined with other legitimate factors may be relevant. Employers must also show that less discriminatory alternatives were considered.

Employer action point: justification should be assessed before implementing policies, not constructed after a challenge arises. Evidence of impact assessment, consideration of alternatives and proportionality analysis is critical.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers often lose indirect discrimination claims not because their aim was illegitimate, but because they failed to demonstrate proportionality or explore less discriminatory options.

3. Age discrimination: a limited exception to the no-justification rule

Unlike other protected characteristics, direct age discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This reflects policy considerations around workforce planning, safety and experience. However, the justification threshold remains high.

Mandatory retirement ages, age-based benefits or experience requirements must be carefully analysed. Tribunals scrutinise whether age-based measures genuinely address the stated aim and whether non-age-based alternatives were feasible.

Employer action point: age-related policies should be reviewed with particular care and supported by objective evidence. Assumptions about capability or suitability based on age are unlikely to be defensible.

What happens if you get it wrong: unjustified age discrimination claims can succeed even where the employer believed the policy was reasonable or industry standard.

4. Positive action versus unlawful positive discrimination

The Equality Act permits positive action in limited circumstances to address disadvantage, meet different needs or encourage participation among underrepresented groups. This is not the same as positive discrimination, which remains unlawful in most employment contexts.

Positive action must be proportionate, evidence-based and aimed at removing barriers rather than guaranteeing outcomes. Recruitment tie-break provisions are particularly sensitive and must be applied on a case-by-case basis where candidates are genuinely equally qualified.

Employer action point: before implementing positive action measures, employers should identify the specific disadvantage or underrepresentation being addressed and document why the steps taken are proportionate.

What happens if you get it wrong: well-intentioned diversity initiatives can expose employers to discrimination claims if they cross the line into preferential treatment based solely on protected characteristics.

5. Health and safety justifications

Health and safety considerations can justify certain measures that might otherwise be indirectly discriminatory, provided they are proportionate and genuinely linked to risk mitigation. Employers must show that the measure is necessary and supported by objective risk assessment evidence.

Employer action point: health and safety justifications should be evidence-led and aligned with formal risk assessments, not assumptions or generalisations about protected groups.

What happens if you get it wrong: tribunals are cautious of health and safety arguments that rely on stereotypes or outdated assumptions and will reject justifications lacking objective support.

Section E summary
The Equality Act 2010 allows unequal treatment in limited, tightly defined circumstances. Occupational requirements, objective justification, age-specific exceptions, positive action and health and safety considerations can all provide lawful routes, but only where employers apply the correct legal tests and retain evidence. From a risk management perspective, the greatest danger lies in assuming that business need or good intention alone will justify unequal treatment. Lawful justification requires forethought, proportionality analysis and documentary support.

Section F: Positive action, diversity initiatives and where employers cross the legal line

This section deals with a high-risk area for employers in 2026: how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion without breaching the Equality Act 2010. Many organisations face pressure from stakeholders, employees and regulators to demonstrate progress on diversity. Legal exposure arises when commercial, reputational or cultural objectives move faster than legal controls.

1. What positive action is — and what it is not

The Equality Act 2010 allows positive action in limited circumstances under sections 158 and 159. Positive action is lawful where an employer reasonably believes that people who share a protected characteristic experience a disadvantage connected to that characteristic, have particular needs that are different from others, or are disproportionately underrepresented in a particular activity or role.

Crucially, positive action is about removing barriers or encouraging participation, not guaranteeing outcomes. It does not permit blanket preferences or automatic advantage based solely on protected characteristics.

Employer action point: before implementing any positive action initiative, employers should identify the specific disadvantage or underrepresentation they are seeking to address and retain evidence supporting that belief.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers often face claims where initiatives are introduced informally, without evidence or without clearly defining the scope and limits of the action.

2. Recruitment “tie-breaks” and the narrow scope of lawful preference

Section 159 permits limited positive action in recruitment and promotion where candidates are as qualified as each other and the employer reasonably believes one group is underrepresented or disadvantaged. Even then, preference must be applied on a case-by-case basis and cannot operate as a blanket policy.

Employers frequently misunderstand this provision. It does not allow quotas, automatic selection or guaranteed progression. The “as qualified” test is strict and requires a defensible assessment of merit across relevant criteria.

Employer action point: if relying on a tie-break, employers must be able to show that candidates were genuinely equally qualified and that the decision was proportionate and not automatic.

What happens if you get it wrong: tribunals will reject tie-break justifications where selection criteria were vague, undocumented or inconsistently applied.

3. Diversity targets, quotas and reporting obligations

Targets can be lawful if they are aspirational and do not dictate outcomes. Quotas that require a certain number or proportion of roles to be filled by people with a protected characteristic will generally amount to unlawful positive discrimination.

Public statements, internal communications and ESG reporting can all create legal risk if they imply guaranteed outcomes or preferential treatment. Employers should be cautious about how diversity objectives are framed and communicated.

Employer action point: diversity targets should focus on outreach, development and opportunity, not guaranteed representation. Legal review of public-facing statements is advisable where commitments might be interpreted as outcome guarantees.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers may face discrimination claims from individuals who believe they were disadvantaged by unlawful preferences, alongside reputational damage if initiatives are challenged publicly.

4. Training, development and support initiatives

Providing targeted training or support for underrepresented groups can fall within lawful positive action where it is aimed at addressing disadvantage or encouraging participation. However, excluding others without a lawful basis can create risk.

Employers should be able to explain why the initiative is necessary, proportionate and reviewable. Where eligibility criteria are applied, they should be transparent and defensible.

Employer action point: document the rationale for targeted initiatives and ensure eligibility criteria are clear, proportionate and aligned to the identified disadvantage or underrepresentation.

What happens if you get it wrong: claims may arise where individuals are excluded from opportunities without transparent justification, particularly in promotion or leadership development contexts.

5. The legal boundary: positive action vs positive discrimination

Employers often need clear boundaries. Positive action can be lawful, but positive discrimination is generally unlawful in employment. For practical guidance on lawful measures, see our resource on positive action.

Employer action point: treat positive action as a controlled legal mechanism: evidence-based, proportionate, time-limited or reviewable, and implemented through defined processes, not informal manager discretion.

What happens if you get it wrong: crossing the line can create direct discrimination exposure, undermine employee trust and trigger regulatory or public scrutiny that amplifies reputational harm.

Section F summary
Positive action under the Equality Act 2010 offers employers a lawful route to promote equality and inclusion, but the boundaries are narrow. Risk arises when initiatives drift into outcome-driven preferences, informal quotas or poorly evidenced assumptions about disadvantage. From a compliance perspective, diversity strategies should be grounded in evidence, clearly scoped and carefully communicated. Employers who align DEI objectives with legal controls are better placed to achieve sustainable progress without creating new discrimination risks.

Section G: What happens if an employer gets it wrong under the Equality Act 2010?

This section focuses on the consequences employers are most concerned about: the legal, financial and operational exposure that arises where Equality Act obligations are breached, and how discrimination disputes typically unfold in practice. Equality Act claims behave very differently from ordinary unfair dismissal cases, and employers often underestimate both their scope and impact.

1. Who can bring a discrimination claim and when?

Discrimination claims can be brought by job applicants, workers or employees who allege they have been subjected to unlawful conduct under the Equality Act 2010. Unlike unfair dismissal claims, there is no minimum length of service requirement. Exposure therefore arises from the very start of the recruitment process.

Claims must usually be presented to an employment tribunal within three months less one day of the alleged act, subject to ACAS early conciliation. Discrimination is frequently pleaded as a continuing act, which can extend limitation periods where the conduct forms part of an ongoing pattern.

Employer action point: do not assume that short service or probationary status limits Equality Act risk. Recruitment and early employment decisions are a common source of discrimination claims.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers may find themselves defending claims long after the original decision, particularly where issues were not addressed promptly or properly documented.

2. Compensation exposure and why Equality Act claims are commercially high-risk

One of the most significant features of Equality Act litigation is that compensation is uncapped. Employment tribunals can award compensation for financial loss, injury to feelings and, in some cases, aggravated damages.

Injury to feelings awards follow the Vento bands, which are updated periodically and can reach substantial sums for serious or prolonged discrimination. Where discrimination is linked to dismissal, loss of earnings can extend far beyond the statutory cap that applies in ordinary unfair dismissal cases.

Employer action point: risk assessments should account for worst-case exposure, not average awards. Equality Act claims can easily exceed the cost of early resolution or proactive compliance measures.

What happens if you get it wrong: even a single successful claim can have a material financial impact once legal costs, management time and reputational harm are factored in.

3. Automatically unfair dismissal and overlapping claims

Where an employee is dismissed for a reason connected to a protected characteristic, the dismissal may be automatically unfair for unfair dismissal purposes and may also constitute unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, the usual two-year qualifying service requirement does not apply.

In practice, discrimination and unfair dismissal claims are often pursued together. Employers sometimes focus on defending the fairness of the dismissal process while overlooking the discrimination analysis, which carries greater financial exposure.

Employer action point: dismissal decisions involving protected characteristics should be reviewed through both unfair dismissal and Equality Act lenses before being finalised.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers may succeed in defending unfair dismissal but still lose on discrimination, resulting in uncapped compensation.

4. Vicarious liability for acts of employees

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers are vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by their employees in the course of employment, unless they can show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct.

This includes acts of harassment, victimisation and discriminatory decision-making by managers and colleagues, even where senior leadership was unaware of the behaviour. Informal settings, work-related social events and online communications can all fall within scope.

Employer action point: policies, training and consistent enforcement are essential to support a “reasonable steps” defence. Employers must be able to demonstrate proactive prevention, not just reactive response.

What happens if you get it wrong: failure to train managers, address known issues or enforce standards can defeat the statutory defence and result in employer liability.

5. Burden of proof and evidential risk

Equality Act claims operate under a shifting burden of proof. Once a claimant establishes facts from which discrimination could be inferred, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.

This places a premium on contemporaneous documentation, consistency and credible witness evidence. Poor record-keeping, inconsistent explanations or informal decision-making can significantly weaken the employer’s position.

Employer action point: ensure that key HR decisions are supported by clear, contemporaneous records explaining the rationale and the factors considered.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers often lose cases not because discrimination occurred, but because they cannot rebut the inference once the burden shifts.

Section G summary
Breaching the Equality Act 2010 exposes employers to significant legal, financial and reputational risk. Claims can be brought without service requirements, compensation is uncapped and employers may be liable for the acts of their workforce. From a risk management perspective, early identification of Equality Act issues, disciplined decision-making and robust evidence are critical to limiting exposure and defending claims.

Section H: How should employers manage Equality Act 2010 compliance in practice?

This section moves from legal theory into operational control. Employers rarely lose Equality Act cases because they lacked policies. They lose because policies were not embedded, managers exercised discretion inconsistently or evidence did not exist when it mattered. Effective compliance is therefore a governance issue, not a training exercise.

1. Policies: what tribunals actually expect to see

Equality and anti-discrimination policies are a baseline requirement, but their legal value depends on content, accessibility and enforcement. Tribunals are sceptical of generic policies that are not tailored to the organisation or reflected in real decision-making. Effective Equality Act policies should be aligned to the organisation’s operational risks and the decisions managers are expected to take.

Effective Equality Act policies should:

• clearly define prohibited conduct using Equality Act terminology
• explain how discrimination can arise unintentionally, including through neutral policies and practices
• set out reporting, investigation and escalation routes
• link directly to disciplinary consequences
• integrate with absence, performance, recruitment and grievance policies

Employer action point: policies should be reviewed regularly for legal accuracy and operational relevance. They must reflect how decisions are actually made, not how the organisation would like them to be made.

What happens if you get it wrong: policies that exist only on paper will not support a “reasonable steps” defence and may undermine credibility if contradicted by practice.

2. Training: moving beyond tick-box compliance

Equality training is often treated as a one-off exercise or compliance checkbox. From a legal risk perspective, this approach is inadequate. Training must equip managers to recognise Equality Act risk in real scenarios and apply the correct legal framework.

Effective training should:

• focus on decision-making risk points such as recruitment, performance, absence and dismissal
• explain how protected characteristics change legal obligations
• include practical examples, edge cases and common mistakes
• reinforce documentation and escalation expectations

Employer action point: training should be role-specific. Line managers, HR professionals and senior leaders face different Equality Act risks and require different levels of detail. Training should also be refreshed and evidenced to support the “reasonable steps” defence.

What happens if you get it wrong: employers may be unable to rely on the statutory defence if training is outdated, generic, not targeted at decision-makers or not supported by evidence of completion and enforcement.

3. Decision-making controls and evidence

The strongest Equality Act defence is a clear, contemporaneous evidence trail. Employers who can show how and why decisions were made are far better placed to rebut discrimination inferences and demonstrate proportionality or adjustments compliance.

Key controls include:

• structured recruitment scoring and retained interview notes
• documented rationale for pay, promotion and redundancy decisions
• recorded consideration of reasonable adjustments and any alternatives explored
• consistent application of policies, with documented reasons for exceptions

Employer action point: HR should act as a gatekeeper for high-risk decisions involving protected characteristics, ensuring legal tests are applied before outcomes are finalised and that the rationale is recorded in a way that would be credible under tribunal scrutiny.

What happens if you get it wrong: inconsistent explanations, missing records or informal decision-making often shift the burden of proof against the employer and can be difficult to recover once proceedings start.

4. Audits, monitoring and governance

Regular review of Equality Act compliance helps identify patterns and risks before they escalate into claims. Audits can reveal disproportionate outcomes, policy weaknesses or training gaps. Monitoring outcomes by protected characteristic can also help employers identify whether apparently neutral practices are generating adverse impact, particularly in recruitment, progression, absence management and redundancy selection.

Employer action point: incorporate Equality Act risk into broader HR and governance audits. Where monitoring identifies adverse impact, employers should consider whether policies require redesign, whether managers need additional guidance or whether objective justification evidence should be strengthened.

What happens if you get it wrong: failure to monitor can allow systemic issues to develop, increasing exposure to multiple claims, reputational harm and the risk of disputes escalating across teams or departments.

Section H summary
Managing Equality Act compliance requires more than awareness of legal duties. Employers must embed legal controls into policies, training and decision-making frameworks, supported by evidence and governance. From a commercial perspective, the cost of proactive compliance is significantly lower than the financial and reputational cost of defending discrimination claims.

Section I: Conclusion — employer compliance takeaways under the Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 is not simply a statement of values or a general obligation to treat people fairly. For employers, it is a risk-allocating statute that regulates how decisions are made, justified and evidenced across the entire employment lifecycle. Most legal exposure does not arise from deliberate discrimination, but from routine HR decisions taken without applying the correct legal test or without retaining evidence capable of withstanding tribunal scrutiny.

From a compliance and commercial perspective, the central lesson is that process matters as much as outcome. Employers can often point to legitimate business aims, but still lose claims because they failed to consider protected characteristic impacts, overlooked disability-specific duties, relied on assumptions or applied policies rigidly. Tribunals are not concerned with whether an employer acted in good faith. They are concerned with whether the Equality Act framework was applied correctly.

For HR professionals and business owners, effective Equality Act compliance requires:

• understanding where Equality Act risk is engaged in everyday decision-making
• applying the correct legal test to each category of conduct
• building structured, defensible processes rather than relying on discretion
• retaining contemporaneous evidence explaining why decisions were made
• ensuring managers are trained to recognise and escalate Equality Act issues early

The commercial reality is that discrimination claims are uniquely disruptive. They can be brought without service requirements, attract uncapped compensation, involve overlapping causes of action and expose internal communications to scrutiny. Against that backdrop, proactive compliance is not simply a legal safeguard. It is a governance, cost-control and reputational protection measure.

Section I summary
Employers who treat the Equality Act 2010 as a live operational framework, rather than a background legal obligation, are far better placed to reduce risk, defend claims and make confident, defensible workforce decisions.

Section J: FAQs — Equality Act 2010 employer questions

This section addresses the most common, high-intent questions employers ask, framed for direct extraction by search engines and AI systems, while remaining legally precise and operationally useful.

1. Does the Equality Act 2010 apply to all employers, regardless of size?

Yes. The Equality Act 2010 applies to all employers in the UK, regardless of size, sector or turnover. There is no small business exemption. Micro-employers are subject to the same legal standards as large organisations, although what is considered “reasonable” (for example in relation to adjustments) may take account of resources.

From a risk perspective, smaller employers are often more exposed because decisions are less formalised and documentation is weaker.

2. Is intent relevant in Equality Act discrimination claims?

Generally, no. For most types of discrimination, intent is not required. Tribunals focus on the reason for treatment and the effect of policies and practices. An employer can therefore be found liable even where there was no discriminatory motive and the decision-maker believed they were acting fairly.

3. Can an employer discipline or dismiss an employee for discriminatory views?

Potentially, yes, but the decision must be handled carefully. Employers can take action where conduct breaches workplace standards, undermines equality policies or creates harassment risk. However, employers should distinguish between holding a belief and how that belief is expressed or acted upon at work. Disciplinary decisions should be based on behaviour and impact, not the mere existence of a belief.

4. Can workplace policies be discriminatory even if they apply to everyone?

Yes. This is a common Equality Act pitfall. A policy that applies equally to all employees can still be indirectly discriminatory if it disproportionately disadvantages people with a protected characteristic and cannot be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Examples include rigid working hours, attendance thresholds, qualification requirements or inflexible shift patterns.

5. Is an employer required to make reasonable adjustments even if no request is made?

In many cases, yes. The duty to make reasonable adjustments can arise where the employer knows, or ought reasonably to know, that an employee is disabled and at a substantial disadvantage. Employers should not rely solely on the absence of a formal request where the need for adjustments is reasonably apparent from the circumstances.

6. Can cost alone justify refusing adjustments or policy changes?

Cost can be relevant, but cost alone is rarely sufficient. Tribunals expect employers to balance cost against effectiveness, resources and alternatives. A blanket refusal based purely on expense creates significant legal risk. Cost combined with other legitimate factors may be relevant, but employers should evidence how the balance was assessed.

7. How long do discrimination claims typically last?

Equality Act claims are often longer and more complex than unfair dismissal claims. It is not unusual for cases to run for 12 to 24 months, particularly where multiple allegations, witnesses or extensive disclosure are involved. This increases management time, legal costs and operational disruption.

8. Can an employer be liable for discrimination by managers or colleagues?

Yes. Employers can be vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by employees in the course of employment unless they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct. This is why effective policies, training and consistent enforcement matter in practice.

9. Is positive action the same as positive discrimination?

No. Positive action can be lawful in limited circumstances where it is proportionate and evidence-based. Positive discrimination, meaning preferential treatment based solely on a protected characteristic, is generally unlawful in employment except in very limited statutory scenarios.

10. What is the single biggest Equality Act risk for employers?

From a claims and cost perspective, disability-related risk is often the most significant because it involves additional duties and disability-specific causes of action, including reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. Many employers underestimate how easily these duties are triggered and how closely tribunals scrutinise process and evidence.

Section J summary
The Equality Act 2010 creates broad and immediate obligations for employers. Most disputes arise not from deliberate discrimination, but from misunderstanding how the law applies to everyday HR decisions. Employers who treat these issues as compliance checkpoints, rather than abstract legal theory, are better positioned to manage risk and defend claims.

Section K: Glossary — key Equality Act 2010 terms for employers

Section L: Useful links — authoritative Equality Act 2010 resources