This article applies to England, Wales and Scotland.
In brief: Indirect discrimination is when an employer applies the same rule to everyone, but it particularly disadvantages people sharing a protected characteristic and the employer cannot justify it. Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 defines it. The time limit is 3 months less one day, or 6 months where the problem happened on or after 1 October 2026.
Last updated: September 2026
By Yerty | Written from the Equality Act 2010, Acas guidance and published appeal decisions.
Indirect discrimination is about workplace rules that apply to everyone but affect some groups more than others. It can happen even when nobody intended to discriminate. This guide sets out what the Equality Act says, common examples at work, what you would need to show at a tribunal, and when an employer can lawfully justify a rule.
Important: This guide provides information about UK employment law. Yerty is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Every situation is different. If you think a workplace rule has disadvantaged you, consider speaking to a solicitor for advice specific to your circumstances.
What is indirect discrimination?
Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 defines it. The core of the section reads:
"A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's." Equality Act 2010, section 19(1)
Section 19(2) then sets out when a rule is discriminatory. All four of these have to be met:
"(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."
The government's Explanatory Notes put it more simply. Indirect discrimination happens when a policy that applies to everybody has an effect that particularly disadvantages people with a protected characteristic.
Provision, criterion or practice (usually shortened to PCP) is the legal term for the rule. It can be a written policy, but it does not have to be. Acas says PCPs are "not always written down" and can include informal decisions and ways of working (Acas: indirect discrimination).
A one-off decision is not automatically a PCP. It is more likely to count if it shows how things are generally done, or would be done again in a similar case.
How is it different from direct discrimination?
Direct discrimination asks why you were treated worse: was it because of a protected characteristic? Indirect discrimination asks what a rule does: does it disadvantage a protected group, and you, without good reason?
| Direct discrimination (s.13) | Indirect discrimination (s.19) | |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | Was the treatment because of the protected characteristic? | Did a rule disadvantage the protected group and you? |
| Does it have to be deliberate? | No. The reason can be unconscious | No. A rule with a neutral purpose can still be unlawful |
| Can the employer justify it? | Generally no, though direct age discrimination can be justified | Yes, if the rule is objectively justified |
| Pregnancy and maternity? | At work, covered by a separate test in s.18 | Not covered, but it may be indirect sex discrimination |
The two claims need different evidence. A direct claim is about the reason for the treatment. An indirect claim is about the effect of the rule, and whether the employer can justify it.
What are some examples of indirect discrimination at work?
Acas lists the kinds of rules that often lead to these claims: facilities, dress codes, flexible and home working, recruitment criteria, redundancy selection, and working hours. Some typical situations:
- Shift patterns and full-time rules. The Explanatory Notes give the example of a woman forced to leave her job because of a shift pattern she cannot fit around childcare. Women are more likely to be responsible for childcare, so this could be indirect sex discrimination unless the employer can justify it.
- Scheduling and dress rules. The Explanatory Notes also give the example of an observant Jewish engineer put off applying for a course because selection always takes place on Saturdays.
- Experience requirements. Acas gives the example of a job advert asking for 10 years in retail. That may shut out younger applicants who have the skills.
- Recruiting only internally. Acas describes a business that only advertises a senior role internally, when everyone eligible is a man. Nobody meant to exclude women, but the effect may still be indirect sex discrimination.
- Absence policies. An absence policy applied to everyone may disadvantage people with a particular disability. These claims often also involve the separate duty to make reasonable adjustments.
- Promotion tests. A test everyone must pass may have lower pass rates for some racial or age groups, as in the Supreme Court case below.
Section 19 does not cover pregnancy and maternity. Acas says that disadvantaging someone because of pregnancy or maternity is likely to be indirect sex discrimination instead. One example is refusing a new mother's flexible working request without a genuine business reason.
If one of these sounds like what is happening to you, the free Workplace Assessment takes about five minutes and looks at your situation. Our discrimination and harassment page sets out the steps in order.
What would I have to show at a tribunal?
Section 19(2) can be broken into four questions.
1. What was the rule? The rule needs to be described clearly. "The requirement to work Saturday shifts from March 2026" is easier for a tribunal to test than "the way my manager organised the rota".
2. Does it disadvantage people who share your characteristic? This compares groups. Statistics can help, but they are not always needed. Tribunals can accept some things as well known. The main example is that women still do more childcare than men, which can limit when they can work.
The tribunal also has to decide who is being compared, called the pool for comparison. In general, the pool is everyone the rule applies to (Essop and Naeem, paragraph 41). In Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (2021), a tribunal compared only the nurses in the claimant's own team. The appeal tribunal said the pool should have been every community nurse the rule applied to (Trowers & Hamlins case note).
3. Did it disadvantage you? You must show the rule affected you personally, not only people like you.
4. Can the employer justify it? If the first three are shown, it is for the employer to prove the rule was justified.
You do not have to explain why the rule disadvantages your group. In Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27, civil servants challenged a promotion test that Black and minority ethnic candidates, and older candidates, passed far less often. Nobody knew why. The Supreme Court said the claimants did not need to prove the reason. It also said the rule does not have to disadvantage everyone in the group (Essop and Naeem, paragraphs 24 to 33; Doyle Clayton case note).
When can an employer justify it?
Under section 19(2)(d), a rule is lawful if the employer can show it is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". This is called objective justification. Many indirect discrimination claims are won or lost here.
It has two parts:
- A legitimate aim. A real business need, such as health and safety or running the service properly.
- Proportionate means. The rule has to be a proportionate way of meeting that aim. The tribunal weighs how important the aim is against the harm the rule causes. It also looks at whether a less discriminatory option would have worked. Acas says cost alone is unlikely to be enough.
Proving disadvantage does not mean the claim succeeds. The Dobson case went back to the tribunal, which found the nurse was disadvantaged but that the flexible-working rule was justified. The aims were round-the-clock community care, sharing the workload fairly, and reducing the cost of senior staff covering weekends. The tribunal found she could manage occasional weekends, with difficulty. In February 2026 the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision (Dobson [2026] EAT 32; Thompsons case note).
Naeem, decided with Essop, ended the same way. A Muslim prison chaplain challenged a pay scale based on length of service. The Supreme Court agreed it disadvantaged Muslim chaplains, but left in place the tribunal's finding that it was justified (Essop and Naeem, paragraphs 42 to 48; BDBF case note).
Alternatives matter here. The employer has to prove justification, but the Supreme Court has said a claimant is expected to challenge a claim that nothing else could be done. In Dobson, the tribunal was allowed to take into account that the nurse had not suggested any alternative during consultation. If your employer says the rule is necessary, you may want to consider what other options they had.
What if I don't have the characteristic but was hit by the same rule?
Since 1 January 2024, section 19A of the Equality Act protects you. It covers someone who does not share the characteristic but is put at "substantively the same disadvantage" as those who do (Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023).
Acas gives the example of an employer who avoids recruiting from a postcode where many Polish people live. That may discriminate against Polish applicants. It may also discriminate against applicants from that postcode who are not Polish, because they face the same disadvantage.
Is indirect discrimination unlawful if it wasn't deliberate?
Yes. Intention is not part of the section 19 test. A rule brought in for neutral reasons can still be indirect discrimination.
Intention only changes the order in which the tribunal considers remedies. Under section 124(4) and (5), if the discrimination was unintentional, the tribunal must first consider a declaration or a recommendation before compensation. A declaration is a formal statement that the employer discriminated. A recommendation asks the employer to take steps to reduce the effect on you.
This does not stop you getting compensation. In Wisbey v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2021] EWCA Civ 650, the Court of Appeal said it is only a matter of procedure. Where the discrimination caused loss or injury, compensation is to be expected. Mr Wisbey got no award for injury to feelings (compensation for upset and distress). That was because there was no evidence the rule had caused him any, not because it was unintentional (Wisbey, paragraphs 40 and 44; MFMac case note).
How long do I have to bring a claim?
Act quickly. For discrimination claims the time limit is currently 3 months less one day from the act you are complaining about.
If the discrimination continued over a period, the clock may start later. Working out the last act can be difficult, so it is safer not to assume that an ongoing policy or an open grievance keeps time running. Tribunals can accept a late claim if it is "just and equitable" (section 123), but that is their choice and not something to rely on.
In most cases you must notify Acas and go through early conciliation before making a claim. This pauses the clock. For notifications made on or after 1 December 2025, conciliation can last up to 12 weeks.
The deadlines tool can help you work out your own date.
Change from 1 October 2026. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, the limit for most claims, including discrimination, becomes 6 months less one day. This only applies where your time limit starts on or after 1 October 2026 (Acas: employment tribunal time limits). If you are not sure when the clock started, contacting Acas early is the safer course.
What could I claim?
There is no cap on discrimination compensation. It can cover money you have lost and a separate award for injury to feelings. The tribunal can also recommend that the employer takes steps to reduce the effect of the rule on you.
For what published tribunal decisions show about awards and outcomes, see our data on disability, race and sex discrimination claims.
What to do next
If you think a workplace rule has disadvantaged you because of a protected characteristic, the options usually considered are:
- Write down the rule as exactly as you can: what it says or how it works, when it started, and how it has affected you. Keep copies of the policy and any related emails. Case Hub keeps your documents and timeline in one place.
- Ask your employer why the rule exists. Knowing their aim can help you think about whether the rule is necessary and what other options they had.
- Consider raising a grievance. It gives your employer the chance to change the rule, and shows a tribunal you tried to sort things out.
- Check your deadline and contact Acas before it runs out. If conciliation does not resolve things, the next step is the ET1 claim form.
These claims often turn on detailed arguments about the rule and the employer's reasons. For complex or high-value cases, you may still want to speak with a solicitor. If you are not sure which characteristic applies, our guide to the nine protected characteristics sets out each one in the Act's own words.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is indirect discrimination in simple terms?
It is when an employer applies the same rule to everyone, but the rule puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage and the employer cannot justify it. It is defined in section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and covers eight of the nine protected characteristics, all except pregnancy and maternity.
What is an example of indirect discrimination at work?
A shift pattern that a mother cannot fit around childcare may disadvantage women, who are more likely to be responsible for childcare. Unless the employer can show the rule is a proportionate way of meeting a genuine business need, this could be indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act.
Can indirect discrimination be unintentional?
Yes. Intention is not part of the section 19 test, so a rule brought in for neutral reasons can still be unlawful. If it was unintentional, the tribunal must consider a declaration or recommendation before compensation, but the Court of Appeal has confirmed compensation is still expected where loss or injury was caused.
What does PCP mean in indirect discrimination?
PCP stands for provision, criterion or practice, the Equality Act's term for the rule being challenged. It covers written policies and informal practices, such as working hours, dress codes, recruitment criteria and absence triggers. A one-off decision may count if it shows how things are generally done.
Do I have to prove why a rule disadvantages my group?
No. In Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court held that claimants do not need to explain why a rule disadvantages their group. It is enough to show that it does, and that it disadvantaged you personally. The rule does not need to disadvantage every member of the group.
Can an employer justify indirect discrimination?
Yes, if it shows the rule is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. The tribunal weighs the aim against the harm and looks at less discriminatory options. In Dobson (2026), a flexible-working rule that disadvantaged mothers was found justified by the need for round-the-clock community care.
Is pregnancy covered by indirect discrimination?
Not directly. Section 19 does not list pregnancy and maternity. However, Acas says that disadvantaging someone because of pregnancy or maternity, such as refusing a new mother's flexible working request without a genuine reason, is likely to be indirect sex discrimination instead.
What is the time limit for an indirect discrimination claim?
Currently 3 months less one day from the act complained of, extended by time spent in Acas early conciliation. From 1 October 2026 it becomes 6 months less one day, but only where the time limit starts on or after that date.
Sources
- Equality Act 2010, section 19 (indirect discrimination), legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19
- Equality Act 2010, Explanatory Notes to section 19, legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19/notes
- The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023, regulation 3 (section 19A), legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2023/9780348253191/regulation/3/2024-01-01
- Equality Act 2010, section 123 (time limits) and section 124 (remedies), legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/123 and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/124
- "Indirect discrimination", Acas, August 2026: https://www.acas.org.uk/discrimination-and-the-law/indirect-discrimination
- "Employment tribunal time limits", Acas, 2026: https://www.acas.org.uk/employment-tribunal-time-limits
- Essop v Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27, judgment, The National Archives: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2017/27
- Wisbey v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2021] EWCA Civ 650, judgment, The National Archives: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2021/650
- Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EAT 32, judgment: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69a18b1901cc32678a5bd6eb/Mrs_Gemma_Dobson_v_North_Cumbria_Integrated_Care_NHS_Foundation_Trust__2026__EAT_32.pdf
- "Indirect discrimination: no need to show why claimant disadvantaged", Doyle Clayton: https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/recent-cases/indirect-discrimination-no-need-show-why-claimant-disadvantaged
- "No need to prove reason for disadvantage in indirect discrimination", BDBF: https://www.bdbf.co.uk/no-need-prove-reason-disadvantage-indirect-discrimination/
- "Unintentional indirect discrimination", MFMac: https://mfmac.com/insights/employment/unintentional-indirect-discrimination
- "Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust", Thompsons Solicitors, 2026: https://www.thompsonstradeunion.law/news/employment-law-review/weekly-issue-904/dobson-v-north-cumbria-integrated-care-nhs-foundation-trust
- "Judicial notice should have been taken of childcare disparity", Trowers & Hamlins, 2021: https://www.trowers.com/copy-of-insights/2021/july/judicial-notice-should-have-been-taken-of-childcare-disparity