The Claimants brought claims of indirect discrimination after the Respondent undertook a restructuring exercise following the fallout from the pandemic. Claims were pursued both by Claimants who have the relevant protected characteristics (for the examples given: non-British nationals; women) (what might be characterised as claims of “ordinary” indirect discrimination), and those that do not (seeking to bring claims of what has been referred to as “associative” indirect discrimination, but which, in this context, is more accurately described as “same disadvantage” indirect discrimination). It was held that the ET had jurisdiction to consider indirect discrimination claims under section 19 EqA where there is a PCP applied by an employer that puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage, and where the claimant also suffers that disadvantage but does not have the same protected characteristic as the disadvantaged group. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The Employment Tribunal made no error of law in concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider indirect discrimination claims under section 19 EqA where there is a PCP applied by an employer that puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage, where the claimant in such a case must also suffer that disadvantage, but where that claimant need not have the same protected characteristic as the disadvantaged group.