Perceptive discrimination is one of the least understood areas of UK equality law, yet it carries the same legal weight and financial risk as any other form of direct discrimination. Under the Equality Act 2010, an employer can be liable for unlawful discrimination even where the individual concerned does not actually possess the protected characteristic in question. What matters is the reason for the treatment. If that reason is a mistaken belief about a protected characteristic, the law is engaged.
In practice, perceptive discrimination most commonly arises from assumptions. These may be based on a person’s name, appearance, mannerisms, health condition or personal associations. A decision-maker may believe they are acting on legitimate business considerations, when in reality their reasoning is rooted in perception rather than fact. The legal test does not require the claimant to prove that the assumption was correct. It only requires proof that the treatment occurred because of that assumed characteristic.
Tribunals scrutinise employer motive carefully. Recruitment decisions, promotion outcomes, capability assessments and dismissals are particularly exposed. Where perception forms part of the reasoning, even subconsciously, liability can follow.
What this article is about
This article provides a comprehensive employer-focused guide to perceptive discrimination under UK law. It explains the statutory definition, how direct discrimination by perception operates, the leading case law authority, practical workplace examples, employer liability principles, and the steps organisations should take to manage legal risk. The aim is to equip employers and HR professionals with a clear understanding of both the legal framework and the compliance measures required in 2026.
Section A: What Is Perceptive Discrimination Under UK Law?
Perceptive discrimination sits within the statutory framework of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. It is not a separate cause of action, nor is it expressly defined within the Act. Instead, it arises from the wording of section 13, which provides that a person discriminates against another if, because of a protected characteristic, they treat that person less favourably than they treat or would treat others.
The critical phrase is “because of a protected characteristic”. The legislation does not state that the claimant must actually possess that characteristic. It is sufficient that the decision-maker believed they did. The focus of the tribunal’s enquiry is therefore on the reason for the treatment.
1. Perceptive Discrimination Definition
Perceptive discrimination, also referred to as discrimination by perception or perception discrimination, occurs where:
- An individual is treated less favourably
- Because the decision-maker believes they have a protected characteristic
- Even if that belief is wrong
This form of discrimination is legally categorised as direct discrimination. The fact that the characteristic is incorrectly attributed does not provide a defence.
For example, if a manager refuses to promote an employee because they believe the employee is gay, that may amount to direct discrimination by perception, even if the employee is not gay. The discriminatory act lies in the reason for the decision, not the factual position.
2. What Is Direct Discrimination by Perception?
Direct discrimination by perception operates in exactly the same way as standard direct discrimination. The legal test remains:
- Was the claimant treated less favourably?
- Was that treatment because of a protected characteristic?
- Would a real or hypothetical comparator have been treated differently?
The only distinction is that the protected characteristic is assumed rather than actual.
It is important to distinguish perceptive discrimination from indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination concerns neutral policies that disadvantage a group sharing a protected characteristic. Perceptive discrimination concerns individual treatment motivated by an assumed characteristic. The two concepts should not be conflated.
Perceptive discrimination also differs from associative discrimination. Associative discrimination arises where someone is treated less favourably because of another person’s protected characteristic, such as a parent of a disabled child. In perceptive discrimination, the perceived characteristic is attributed to the claimant themselves.
3. Protected Characteristics Covered
Perceptive discrimination can arise in relation to all protected characteristics listed in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, including a person’s age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.
In practice, perceptive discrimination claims most frequently involve disability, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. However, the statutory protection applies equally across all characteristics.
It should also be noted that marriage and civil partnership is protected only against direct discrimination in employment, and not against harassment or indirect discrimination. Employers must therefore understand the scope of protection applicable to each characteristic.
4. Why Perception Is Legally Irrelevant
A common misunderstanding among employers is that if the assumption was wrong, liability cannot arise. That is incorrect. The Equality Act does not require proof that the claimant actually has the characteristic. The legislation is concerned with discriminatory reasoning.
Tribunals examine evidence such as:
- Comments made during decision-making
- Notes taken during recruitment or performance reviews
- Email correspondence
- Comparative treatment of others
- The credibility of the employer’s explanation
If the evidence demonstrates that the treatment occurred because of a perceived protected characteristic, the claim may succeed regardless of factual accuracy.
This approach reinforces the principle that discrimination law regulates motives and conduct, not personal identity.
Section A Summary
Perceptive discrimination under UK law is a form of direct discrimination grounded in section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It arises where less favourable treatment occurs because of a mistaken belief that someone possesses a protected characteristic. The accuracy of the belief is legally irrelevant. What matters is the reason for the decision. Employers must therefore ensure that assumptions and stereotypes play no role in workplace decision-making.
Section A: What Is Perceptive Discrimination Under UK Law?
Perceptive discrimination sits within the statutory framework of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. It is not a separate cause of action, nor is it expressly defined within the Act. Instead, it arises from the wording of section 13, which provides that a person discriminates against another if, because of a protected characteristic, they treat that person less favourably than they treat or would treat others.
The critical phrase is “because of a protected characteristic”. The legislation does not state that the claimant must actually possess that characteristic. It is sufficient that the decision-maker believed they did. The focus of the tribunal’s enquiry is therefore on the reason for the treatment.
1. Perceptive Discrimination Definition
Perceptive discrimination, also referred to as discrimination by perception or perception discrimination, occurs where:
- An individual is treated less favourably
- Because the decision-maker believes they have a protected characteristic
- Even if that belief is wrong
This form of discrimination is legally categorised as direct discrimination. The fact that the characteristic is incorrectly attributed does not provide a defence.
For example, if a manager refuses to promote an employee because they believe the employee is gay, that may amount to direct discrimination by perception, even if the employee is not gay. The discriminatory act lies in the reason for the decision, not the factual position.
2. What Is Direct Discrimination by Perception?
Direct discrimination by perception operates in exactly the same way as standard direct discrimination. The legal test remains:
- Was the claimant treated less favourably?
- Was that treatment because of a protected characteristic?
- Would a real or hypothetical comparator have been treated differently?
The only distinction is that the protected characteristic is assumed rather than actual.
It is important to distinguish perceptive discrimination from indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination concerns neutral policies that disadvantage a group sharing a protected characteristic. Perceptive discrimination concerns individual treatment motivated by an assumed characteristic. The two concepts should not be conflated.
Perceptive discrimination also differs from associative discrimination. Associative discrimination arises where someone is treated less favourably because of another person’s protected characteristic, such as a parent of a disabled child. In perceptive discrimination, the perceived characteristic is attributed to the claimant themselves.
3. Protected Characteristics Covered
Perceptive discrimination can arise in relation to all protected characteristics listed in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, including a person’s age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.
In practice, perceptive discrimination claims most frequently involve disability, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. However, the statutory protection applies equally across all characteristics.
It should also be noted that marriage and civil partnership is protected only against direct discrimination in employment, and not against harassment or indirect discrimination. Employers must therefore understand the scope of protection applicable to each characteristic.
4. Why Perception Is Legally Irrelevant
A common misunderstanding among employers is that if the assumption was wrong, liability cannot arise. That is incorrect. The Equality Act does not require proof that the claimant actually has the characteristic. The legislation is concerned with discriminatory reasoning.
Tribunals examine evidence such as:
- Comments made during decision-making
- Notes taken during recruitment or performance reviews
- Email correspondence
- Comparative treatment of others
- The credibility of the employer’s explanation
If the evidence demonstrates that the treatment occurred because of a perceived protected characteristic, the claim may succeed regardless of factual accuracy.
This approach reinforces the principle that discrimination law regulates motives and conduct, not personal identity.
Section A Summary
Perceptive discrimination under UK law is a form of direct discrimination grounded in section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It arises where less favourable treatment occurs because of a mistaken belief that someone possesses a protected characteristic. The accuracy of the belief is legally irrelevant. What matters is the reason for the decision. Employers must therefore ensure that assumptions and stereotypes play no role in workplace decision-making.
Section B: Legal Test, Burden of Proof and Case Law Authority
Understanding perceptive discrimination requires careful attention to how tribunals apply the statutory test in practice. While the concept may appear straightforward, liability often turns on evidential detail and the employer’s ability to demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision.
This section examines the legal test under the Equality Act 2010, how the burden of proof operates, and the leading appellate authority shaping this area of law.
1. The Legal Test Under Section 13 Equality Act 2010
Section 13(1) provides that a person discriminates against another if, because of a protected characteristic, they treat that person less favourably than they treat or would treat others.
In perceptive discrimination cases, the tribunal asks:
- Was the claimant treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator?
- What was the reason for that treatment?
- Was that reason a perceived protected characteristic?
The central issue is causation. The tribunal must determine whether the protected characteristic had a material influence on the decision. It need not be the sole or principal cause, but it must be more than trivial.
2. Comparator Analysis
As with any direct discrimination claim, comparison remains central.
The claimant must show that they were treated less favourably than:
- A real comparator in similar circumstances, or
- A hypothetical comparator who does not possess (or is not perceived to possess) the relevant characteristic.
For example, if a heterosexual employee is denied promotion because they are perceived to be gay, the tribunal will consider whether a comparator not perceived to be gay would have been treated differently in materially similar circumstances.
The comparator exercise is fact-sensitive. Employers should therefore ensure decision-making records clearly explain objective criteria applied.
3. Burden of Proof – Section 136 Equality Act 2010
The burden of proof operates in two stages.
Stage One:
The claimant must establish facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that discrimination has occurred.
Stage Two:
If that threshold is met, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the treatment was not because of a protected characteristic.
The Supreme Court clarified the operation of this test in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33. While the legal burden ultimately remains on the claimant, once sufficient facts are established, the employer must provide a clear and credible explanation for the treatment.
In perceptive discrimination cases, this often means the employer must demonstrate that the decision was based solely on lawful, objective criteria unrelated to any perceived characteristic. Failure to provide a coherent explanation may result in the tribunal drawing adverse inferences.
4. Leading Authority: Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey
The leading case on perceptive discrimination is Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey [2019] EWCA Civ 1061.
In that case:
- A police officer with a hearing condition applied for a transfer.
- The employer refused the transfer due to concerns that her hearing might deteriorate and become a disability.
- The Court of Appeal held that this amounted to perceived disability discrimination.
The employer’s decision was based on an assumption about future disability. The Court confirmed that perceived disability falls squarely within section 13.
The case is significant because it demonstrates that:
- Employers cannot rely on risk-averse assumptions about potential future conditions.
- Medical uncertainty does not justify stereotype-based decision-making.
- Perception can relate to a current or anticipated characteristic.
The decision reinforced that discrimination law protects against prejudgment and speculation.
5. Dismissal and Tribunal Exposure
If an employee is dismissed because they are perceived to possess a protected characteristic, this will amount to unlawful direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
In addition, the dismissal is likely to constitute unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Unlike ordinary unfair dismissal claims, discrimination claims do not require two years’ qualifying service and compensation is uncapped.
Claims may be brought before an employment tribunal. A strict limitation period of three months less one day applies from the date of the discriminatory act (or the last act in a continuing series), subject to ACAS early conciliation which pauses the time limit.
Tribunals may award:
- Loss of earnings (past and future)
- Injury to feelings (assessed under the annually updated Vento guidelines)
- Interest
- Aggravated damages in serious cases
The financial exposure can therefore be significant.
Section B Summary
Perceptive discrimination claims are assessed under the same statutory framework as any direct discrimination claim. The tribunal focuses on the reason for the treatment, applies a comparator analysis, and shifts the evidential burden to the employer once a prima facie case is established. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Coffey confirms that mistaken assumptions, including about future disability, can give rise to liability. Employers must ensure that decisions are grounded in objective evidence, not perception.
Section C: Examples of Discrimination by Perception in the Workplace
Perceptive discrimination most often arises not from deliberate prejudice but from assumption-based decision-making. In practice, tribunals examine how and why a decision was made, rather than whether the employer intended to discriminate. The following examples illustrate how discrimination by perception can arise across the employment lifecycle.
These scenarios reflect common areas of risk and demonstrate how easily liability can arise where perception influences judgement.
1. Recruitment Examples
Recruitment is one of the highest-risk stages for perceptive discrimination.
Example 1: Name-Based Assumptions
An applicant with an African-sounding name is rejected because the recruiter assumes they are Black and believes the client base may respond negatively. Even if the applicant is not Black, this may amount to racial discrimination by perception.
Example 2: Perceived Religion
A candidate is not shortlisted because the hiring manager assumes, based on their appearance, that they follow a particular religion and may require time off for observance. If that assumption influences the decision, liability may arise for religious discrimination.
Example 3: Perceived Gender Reassignment
An interviewer assumes a candidate is transgender and decides not to progress them because they believe the workplace culture may not be supportive. This may amount to discrimination based on gender reassignment.
In each scenario, the critical issue is the reasoning behind the decision.
2. Promotion and Career Progression
Perceptive discrimination can also arise in internal advancement decisions.
Example 4: Sexual Orientation
A heterosexual employee is denied promotion to a public-facing role because management assumes they are gay and fears reputational implications with certain clients. The perception alone is sufficient to ground a claim.
Example 5: Age
An employee is excluded from leadership development because the employer assumes they are close to retirement due to perceived age. Even if the assumption is factually incorrect, it may amount to age discrimination by perception.
Promotion panels should therefore ensure decisions are demonstrably linked to objective performance criteria.
3. Disability and Health-Related Assumptions
Disability-related perceptive discrimination is one of the most litigated areas.
Example 6: Perceived Disability
An employee who occasionally struggles with concentration is assumed to have a mental health condition. As a result, they are denied complex project work. Even if the employee does not meet the statutory definition of disability, the treatment may amount to disability discrimination by perception.
Example 7: Future Disability Risk
An employer refuses to appoint a candidate because they believe a minor hearing issue may deteriorate into a disability. This reflects the principles confirmed in Coffey and illustrates that assumptions about potential future impairment can trigger liability.
Employers must base capability decisions on evidence, not speculation.
4. Dismissal and Redundancy
Dismissal decisions are particularly exposed.
Example 8: Perceived HIV Status
An employee is dismissed because colleagues believe they have HIV. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. The dismissal may amount to unlawful discrimination.
Example 9: Redundancy Selection
During a redundancy process, a manager selects an employee for redundancy because they assume the employee belongs to a particular religious group and may object to certain duties. If perception influences scoring or selection criteria, the process may be discriminatory. Employers should ensure that redundancy selection criteria are objective, evidence-based and consistently applied.
Where dismissal occurs because of a perceived protected characteristic, it is likely to constitute both unlawful discrimination and unfair dismissal.
5. Workplace Culture and Informal Conduct
Perceptive discrimination is not limited to formal employment decisions.
Example 10: Workplace Exclusion
An employee is excluded from networking opportunities because colleagues assume they belong to a particular sexual orientation or religion.
Example 11: Derogatory Comments
Repeated jokes or comments based on a mistaken belief about someone’s identity may amount to workplace harassment. If an individual is treated detrimentally for raising concerns, this may also constitute victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
Employers must recognise that informal behaviour can carry formal legal consequences.
6. Why These Examples Matter
In many perceptive discrimination cases, the employer does not explicitly acknowledge reliance on perception. Evidence may instead be inferred from:
- Inconsistent explanations
- Poor documentation
- Disproportionate decision outcomes
- Witness testimony
- Internal communications
Tribunals draw inferences where objective evidence does not support the employer’s reasoning.
Section C Summary
Examples of discrimination by perception demonstrate that liability arises from assumption-based reasoning at any stage of employment. Recruitment, promotion, capability management and dismissal are particularly high-risk areas. The key lesson for employers is that decisions must be grounded in evidence and objective criteria. Perception, even if mistaken, can create significant legal exposure.
Section D: Employer Liability, Compliance Duties and Risk Management in 2026
Perceptive discrimination presents a clear compliance risk for employers because it is often rooted in unconscious bias, informal assumptions or undocumented reasoning. The legal framework under the Equality Act 2010 imposes both direct liability and vicarious liability, meaning organisations cannot distance themselves from discriminatory conduct carried out by managers or employees in the course of employment.
This section examines employer exposure, the statutory “reasonable steps” defence, and the practical compliance measures required to mitigate tribunal risk in 2026.
1. Vicarious Liability Under the Equality Act 2010
Under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010:
- Anything done by an employee in the course of employment is treated as also done by the employer.
- This applies whether or not the act was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval.
This means that if a line manager rejects a candidate because of a perceived protected characteristic, the employer is legally responsible for that act.
The only statutory defence available is the “reasonable steps” defence under section 109(4). To rely on this, the employer must show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the discriminatory act.
In practice, this requires evidence of:
- Clear anti-discrimination policies
- Regular training for managers and decision-makers
- Effective monitoring mechanisms
- Prompt action when issues arise
Tribunals assess this defence rigorously. Generic policies without active enforcement are unlikely to suffice.
2. Compensation and Tribunal Exposure
Claims for perceptive discrimination carry significant financial risk.
Key points include:
- No minimum service requirement for bringing a discrimination claim.
- A strict limitation period of three months less one day from the date of the act complained of (or the last act in a continuing series), subject to ACAS early conciliation which pauses the time limit.
- Uncapped compensation.
Tribunals may award:
- Past and future loss of earnings
- Injury to feelings (assessed under the annually updated Vento guidelines)
- Interest
- Aggravated damages in serious cases
Where dismissal is involved, the claim may also include unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. While unfair dismissal compensation is capped, discrimination compensation is not.
Claims are determined by an employment tribunal, and adverse findings can result in significant reputational consequences for employers.
3. High-Risk Decision Points
Certain workplace processes create heightened risk of perceptive discrimination:
- Recruitment and shortlisting
- Promotion panels
- Redundancy selection scoring
- Capability or ill-health assessments
- Flexible working decisions
- Reference provision
These processes often involve subjective judgement. Where documentation is limited or reasoning is not clearly recorded, tribunals may infer discriminatory motive.
Employers should therefore ensure that:
- Decision criteria are defined in advance
- Scoring systems are applied consistently
- Reasons for decisions are documented contemporaneously
- Outcomes are reviewed for consistency
Structured governance should also align with the organisation’s employment contract framework and associated workplace policies to ensure consistency between contractual documentation and operational practice.
4. Training and Policy Framework
The “reasonable steps” defence requires more than written policies. It demands active implementation.
Effective compliance measures include:
- A comprehensive equal opportunities policy
- A dignity at work or anti-harassment policy
- Structured recruitment guidance
- Training for managers on direct discrimination by perception
- Training on unconscious bias and lawful decision-making
Training should be refreshed periodically and recorded. One-off sessions delivered years earlier are unlikely to satisfy a tribunal.
5. Handling Complaints of Perceptive Discrimination
Where an allegation of discrimination by perception is raised, employers should:
- Investigate promptly and impartially through a structured workplace investigation
- Follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures
- Ensure an effective and accessible grievance procedure is in place
- Interview relevant witnesses and review documentary evidence
- Provide a reasoned outcome
Even where the employer believes the perception was unfounded, the complaint must be handled seriously. The tribunal will examine whether the employer responded appropriately once concerns were raised.
Failure to follow a fair grievance process may increase compensation awards.
6. Compliance Culture in 2026
Tribunals increasingly expect employers to demonstrate proactive equality compliance. This includes:
- Data-driven monitoring of recruitment and promotion outcomes
- Transparent decision-making frameworks
- Clear communication channels for concerns
- Leadership accountability for equality standards
Perceptive discrimination is often a symptom of broader cultural weaknesses. Employers that embed structured governance and objective decision-making reduce both legal and reputational risk.
Section D Summary
Employer liability for perceptive discrimination is broad and can arise from the actions of individual managers. Compensation is uncapped and claims require no qualifying service. The only defence is to demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent discrimination. In 2026, effective compliance requires active policy enforcement, documented decision-making and robust grievance handling. Organisations that rely on informal, assumption-based reasoning face significant exposure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Perceptive discrimination generates consistent search demand around definition, examples and legal scope. The following answers address the most common employer and HR queries.
1. What is perceptive discrimination in UK law?
Perceptive discrimination is a form of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It occurs where someone is treated less favourably because they are believed to have a protected characteristic, even if that belief is incorrect.
The focus of the tribunal’s assessment is the reason for the treatment, not whether the individual actually possesses the characteristic.
2. What is discrimination by perception?
Discrimination by perception is another term for perceptive discrimination. It refers to direct discrimination based on a mistaken assumption about a protected characteristic such as race, religion, disability or sexual orientation.
3. What is direct discrimination by perception?
Direct discrimination by perception arises where an employer treats an individual less favourably because they assume the individual has a protected characteristic. The legal test is identical to ordinary direct discrimination, except that the characteristic is attributed rather than actual.
4. Do you have to actually have the protected characteristic?
No. The Equality Act 2010 does not require the claimant to prove that they possess the characteristic. It is sufficient that the employer believed they did and acted because of that belief.
5. Is perceptive discrimination the same as associative discrimination?
No. Perceptive discrimination concerns assumptions about the claimant themselves. Associative discrimination occurs where someone is treated less favourably because of another person’s protected characteristic, such as a parent of a disabled child.
Both are forms of direct discrimination but arise in different factual circumstances.
6. Can perceptive discrimination lead to dismissal claims?
Yes. If an employee is dismissed because they are perceived to have a protected characteristic, this may amount to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. It is also likely to constitute unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Discrimination claims do not require two years’ service and compensation is uncapped. Claims are brought before an employment tribunal.
7. How common are perceptive discrimination claims?
Perceptive discrimination claims are less common than other discrimination claims, but they do arise, particularly in cases involving disability, perceived sexual orientation or religion. The leading authority remains Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey [2019].
8. How can employers reduce the risk of discrimination by perception?
Employers can reduce risk by:
- Implementing structured recruitment and promotion processes
- Training managers on discrimination law and unconscious bias
- Documenting decision-making clearly
- Enforcing equal opportunities policies
- Handling grievances promptly and fairly through a robust grievance procedure
The ability to demonstrate reasonable preventative steps is central to defending claims.
Conclusion
Perceptive discrimination UK law reinforces a fundamental principle of equality legislation: employment decisions must not be influenced by assumptions about protected characteristics.
Under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, liability arises where less favourable treatment occurs because of a perceived protected characteristic. The individual does not need to prove that they actually possess that characteristic. The tribunal’s focus is on motive and causation.
For employers, the compliance implications are clear. Recruitment, promotion, redundancy and dismissal decisions must be grounded in objective, evidence-based reasoning. Documentation must support outcomes. Training must be current and effective. Policies must be actively enforced rather than merely published.
In 2026, tribunals expect structured governance and demonstrable equality compliance. Organisations that allow informal, assumption-based reasoning to influence decision-making face significant legal and financial exposure.
Perception, in law, carries the same weight as reality.
Glossary
| Associative Discrimination | A form of direct discrimination where an individual is treated less favourably because of another person’s protected characteristic. |
| Burden of Proof (Section 136 Equality Act 2010) | The two-stage evidential process in discrimination claims where the burden may shift to the employer once a prima facie case is established. |
| Comparator | A real or hypothetical individual used to assess whether the claimant was treated less favourably in materially similar circumstances. |
| Direct Discrimination | Treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic under section 13 Equality Act 2010. |
| Perceptive Discrimination | Direct discrimination arising where an individual is treated less favourably because they are perceived to have a protected characteristic. |
| Protected Characteristics | The nine characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010, including age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. |
| Reasonable Steps Defence | A statutory defence allowing employers to avoid liability if they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination. |
| Vicarious Liability | Employer liability for discriminatory acts committed by employees in the course of employment. |
Useful Links
| Equality Act 2010 | View legislation |
| ACAS Code of Practice | View guidance |
| EHRC Employment Code of Practice | View guidance |
| Direct Discrimination Guide | DavidsonMorris |
| Recruitment Discrimination Guide | DavidsonMorris |
