J Logo v Payone GmbH & Ors
[2024] EAT 9
British Airways PLC v B Rollett & Ors
15 August 2024
[2024] EAT 131
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Imagine a company rule that hurts mostly women, but also harms some men. This case says those men can sue for discrimination even though the rule didn't target men specifically. The court decided the law should stop unfair rules that disadvantage anyone, not just people in specific protected groups like women.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the interpretation of indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •Claimants, Heathrow-based cabin crew, brought claims of indirect discrimination due to scheduling changes following the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •Claims included indirect race and sex discrimination, with some claimants lacking the protected characteristic of the disadvantaged group but suffering the same disadvantage.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) held it had jurisdiction to consider such 'same disadvantage' indirect discrimination claims.
- •British Airways appealed, arguing section 19 requires claimants to share the protected characteristic of the disadvantaged group.
- •The Minister for Women and Equalities intervened, referencing section 19A EqA, introduced in 2024, which explicitly addresses 'same disadvantage' discrimination.
Legal Principles
Definition of indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, section 19
Marleasing principle: interpretation of domestic law in line with EU law.
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (Case C-106/89)
Approach to statutory interpretation under Marleasing; balancing compatibility with EU law and the 'grain' of the legislation.
Vodafone 2 v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2009] EWCA Civ 446, Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
Associative discrimination: claims can be brought by those who suffer treatment because of a protected characteristic, even if they don't possess it.
Showboat Entertainment Centre Ltd v Owens [1984] ICR 65, Weathersfield Ltd v Sargent [1999] ICR 425, EBR Attridge LLP v Coleman [2010] ICR 242
CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashita ot discriminatsia (Case C-83/14): Indirect discrimination extends to those who don't share the protected characteristic of the disadvantaged group, if they suffer the same disadvantage.
CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashita ot discriminatsia (Case C-83/14)
Section 19A Equality Act 2010 (introduced in 2024): Explicitly addresses 'same disadvantage' indirect discrimination.
Equality Act 2010, section 19A
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The ET correctly concluded it had jurisdiction to consider indirect discrimination claims under section 19 EqA where a claimant suffers the same disadvantage as a group with a protected characteristic, even without sharing that characteristic. This interpretation is compatible with the 'grain' of the legislation and its purpose to strengthen equality.