X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau was decided by the Supreme Court yesterday (12th December).
This is a very sad case, where a talented volunteer with exceptional experience believed that she had been dismissed in circumstances amounting to disability discrimination. The bureau involved disputes her version of events and denies that its behaviour was discriminatory.
However, because X was a volunteer and not an employee, the bureau also disputed X's standing to being a claim at all, regardless of the actual conduct involved. This is where I feel they were wrong.
This case was previously heard by the Court of Appeal in 2011, where X had also previously lost on this point. After the hearing then, the bureau gave a statement through its lawyer claiming:
The Equality Act 2010 and its various predecessors provide protection from discrimination to a wide range of people, not just those in paid employment, but in many other settings. These classes of people include almost all customers and clients of organisations, students, tenants, and most members of clubs and associations. It is for this reason that the claim that it is some kind of excessive 'burden' on the CAB to not have to discriminate against volunteer workers simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If a private individual acting as a landlord, a chess club, and a seller of hot chestnuts in the street have to abide by the Equality Act, why would it be a particular burden for voluntary employers? A voluntary employer would already have significant protection from the fact that a volunteer would not be able to claim for loss of earnings – any compensation would be limited to injury to feelings, which for any unintentional discrimination would likely be very low.
It is clear from this list of protected groups that the aim of the anti-discrimination law is to protect individuals from discrimination when dealing with organised associations. The aim was to create a comprehensive list of settings that covers this goal, while not covering dealings between private individuals. If there really is a gap in that list, which denies protection to voluntary workers, the first reaction of the CAB should have been to campaign for that gap to be closed as a matter of urgency. Nothing less would be consistent with its own aims and principles. The statement from Mid Sussex CAB in 2011, in particular, makes these principles look hollow and insencere.
Far from being a 'victory' for the voluntary sector, this comes across to me as a pretty cynical attmept to create a special exemption for itself that is not justified by any reasonable argument.
This is a very sad case, where a talented volunteer with exceptional experience believed that she had been dismissed in circumstances amounting to disability discrimination. The bureau involved disputes her version of events and denies that its behaviour was discriminatory.
However, because X was a volunteer and not an employee, the bureau also disputed X's standing to being a claim at all, regardless of the actual conduct involved. This is where I feel they were wrong.
This case was previously heard by the Court of Appeal in 2011, where X had also previously lost on this point. After the hearing then, the bureau gave a statement through its lawyer claiming:
"This is a significant victory for the voluntary sector. This is because much of the sector is reliant on volunteers and cannot shoulder the financial burden which enhanced rights for volunteers such as X would bring."In my opinion this is a highly misguided, illogical, and pretty offensive remark.
The Equality Act 2010 and its various predecessors provide protection from discrimination to a wide range of people, not just those in paid employment, but in many other settings. These classes of people include almost all customers and clients of organisations, students, tenants, and most members of clubs and associations. It is for this reason that the claim that it is some kind of excessive 'burden' on the CAB to not have to discriminate against volunteer workers simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If a private individual acting as a landlord, a chess club, and a seller of hot chestnuts in the street have to abide by the Equality Act, why would it be a particular burden for voluntary employers? A voluntary employer would already have significant protection from the fact that a volunteer would not be able to claim for loss of earnings – any compensation would be limited to injury to feelings, which for any unintentional discrimination would likely be very low.
It is clear from this list of protected groups that the aim of the anti-discrimination law is to protect individuals from discrimination when dealing with organised associations. The aim was to create a comprehensive list of settings that covers this goal, while not covering dealings between private individuals. If there really is a gap in that list, which denies protection to voluntary workers, the first reaction of the CAB should have been to campaign for that gap to be closed as a matter of urgency. Nothing less would be consistent with its own aims and principles. The statement from Mid Sussex CAB in 2011, in particular, makes these principles look hollow and insencere.
Far from being a 'victory' for the voluntary sector, this comes across to me as a pretty cynical attmept to create a special exemption for itself that is not justified by any reasonable argument.