Good News:
Permission has just been granted by the Court of Appeal in Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited. The reasons for granting permission are encouraging:
“The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.”
We are listed for a hearing lasting 1 1/2 days. I will let you know when we get the listing, which will likely be next year at the earliest.
Thank you to everyone who has supported me.
Source: Update #16 – I’m off to the Court of Appeal – Permission granted — Allison Bailey
For info – s 111 Equality Act 2010, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/8/4 (accessed 6 December 2024)
Section 111: Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions
Effect:
This section makes it unlawful for a person to instruct, cause or induce someone to discriminate against, harass or victimise another person, or to attempt to do so. It provides a remedy for both the recipient of the instruction and the intended victim, whether or not the instruction is carried out, provided the recipient or intended victim suffers a detriment as a result. However, the section only applies where the person giving the instruction is in a relationship with the recipient of the instruction in which discrimination, harassment or victimisation is prohibited.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission can enforce this section using its statutory powers under the Equality Act 2006. Equally, both the recipient of the instruction and the intended victim can bring individual claims for breach of this section against the person giving the instructions, so long as they have suffered a detriment as a result. A claim brought by the recipient of the instruction will be dealt with in the same forum (employment tribunal or county courts) as a direct claim for discrimination, harassment or victimisation against the person giving the instruction would be. A claim brought by the intended victim against the person giving the instruction will be dealt with in the same forum as a claim for discrimination, harassment or victimisation against the person carrying out the instruction would be.
Background
This section replaces provisions in previous legislation in relation to race, sex, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, age (within the workplace) disability (within the workplace), religion or belief (outside the workplace) and sexual orientation (outside the workplace). It extends protection to all protected characteristics in all areas covered by the Act and allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission to bring enforcement proceedings in relation to any action in breach of the section. (Previously, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s enforcement powers were not uniform even between the protected characteristics and fields where there were provisions on instructions to discriminate.) The provision expressly allowing persons instructed to bring proceedings is new (other than in relation to age within the workplace where such provision already exists), and is designed to codify the current position in common law (see Weathersfield v Sargent [1999] IRLR 94). The provision expressly allowing the intended victim to bring proceedings, even where the instruction is not carried out, is also new and is designed to ensure greater clarity about the protection than under previous legislation.
Example
A GP instructs his receptionist not to register anyone with an Asian name. The receptionist would have a claim against the GP if subjected to a detriment for not doing so. A potential patient would also have a claim against the GP if she discovered the instruction had been given and was put off applying to register. The receptionist’s claim against the GP would be brought before the employment tribunal as it relates to employment, while the potential patient’s claim would be brought in the county court as it relates to services.