The City of Oxford Bus Services Ltd (T/A Oxford Bus Company) v Harvey: EAT 21 Dec 2018

RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination – Religion and Belief – Indirect Discrimination – Justification – Section 19(2)
Equality Act 2010
Bus drivers employed by the Respondent were required to work five out of seven days each week, including Fridays and Saturdays. This created difficulties for the Claimant who, as a Seventh Day Adventist, was required to respect the Sabbath by not working between sunset on a Friday to sunset on a Saturday. Accepting that the Respondent’s working arrangements imposed a provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) that placed the Claimant at a disadvantage, the question for the ET was whether the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It was accepted that the Respondent had established legitimate aims of ensuring efficiency, fairness to all staff, the maintenance of a harmonious workforce, and recruitment and retention but the ET considered it had failed to demonstrate that the PCP was a proportionate of achieving these aims, in particular because the Respondent had failed to adduce sufficient evidence and had not been able to demonstrate that its aims could not be met by accommodating the working arrangements requested by the Claimant. The Respondent appealed.
Held: Allowing the appeal.
When carrying out the requisite assessment under section 19(2) of the Equality Act 2010, there was a distinction between justifying the application of the rule to a particular individual and justifying the rule in the particular circumstances of the business (Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] ICR 704 SC, and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] IRLR 601, SC applied). In the present case, the ET’s focus had been on the application of the PCP to the Claimant; it had failed to carry out the requisite assessment of that PCP in the circumstances of the business (see Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax [2005] ICR 1565 CA). The matter would be remitted to the same ET for reconsideration of this question.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0171 – 18 – 2112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635145