0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

can cost ever justify discrimination?

2 June 2011

A ‘provision, criterion or practice’ which puts one protected group (eg persons of a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, age etc) at a disadvantage amounts to indirect discrimination unless it can be justified as a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’

Cost is often a major factor, but until recently, the view from tribunals was that cost alone is not enough. Some recent cases have called this stance into question, the latest being Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd.

Mr Cherfi, a Muslim, regularly left his employers site on Friday lunchtimes to attend mosque. Mr Cherfi was told by his employer that he could no longer do this as G4S were contractually obliged to ensure that a specified number of security guards were present throughout operating hours.

Although in this case the EAT decided that G4S had not relied on cost alone to justify its practices, the EAT did suggest that had it done so, cost by itself might constitute sufficient justification.

related opinions

Anti-social media - but when is it work related?

As the use of social media continues to increase, its overlap with working life is becoming more and more prevalent.

View blog

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up