The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham: EAT 26 Sep 2001

The claimant was given a senior post in the force, but within the same division in which her policeman husband held a more senior post. The appointment was rescinded, and she claimed sex discrimination. She was found to have been indirectly discriminated against because of the marital relationship. The Force had suggested that the particular position of the police would make it wrong for two officers married to each other to hold senior positions within the same division. These difficulties included the lack of compellability against a spouse. This was a condition arising directly from the marital relationship. A greater proportion of women officers were in relationships with men officers than the other way round. There was proper justification for the finding of indirect discrimination.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect


The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown




Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b) 3(1)(b)


England and Wales


ApprovedLondon Underground Limited v Edwards (2) CA 21-May-1998
New rosters for underground train drivers were indirectly discriminatory because all the men could comply with them but not all the women could do so: it was a ‘striking fact’ that not a single man was disadvantaged despite the overwhelming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Discrimination

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.168340