“Supreme Court removes causation requirement from indirect discrimination claims”
Civil servants from ethnic minority backgrounds and older civil servants challenged the Home Office's requirement to pass the Core Skills Assessment (CSA) for promotion. Statistics showed these groups had lower pass rates than white and younger civil servants respectively.
Whether indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 requires proof that the provision, criterion or practice causes the disadvantage suffered by the protected group.
The Supreme Court held that indirect discrimination does not require proof of causation between the provision, criterion or practice and the disadvantage suffered by the protected group.
This decision significantly lowered the evidential burden for indirect discrimination claims by removing the need to prove causation, making such claims more accessible to claimants.
You're reading the free summary of Essop v Home Office. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] 1 WLR 1343
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.