Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning and Infrastructure

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport

Close

In Kohli v Department for International Trade, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected an argument that Tribunals are always required to consider whether there has been subconscious discrimination in direct discrimination claims.

Ms Kohli, who is of Indian origin, brought a claim of direct race discrimination against the Department of Transport in relation to her appraisal grade and the failure to offer her various internal roles. The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed her claim, having found that there were non-discriminatory reasons for each of the complaints. Ms Kohli appealed on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to expressly consider the possibility of subconscious discrimination.

The EAT has dismissed her appeal, ruling that there was no error of law in the Tribunal’s judgment. Tribunals must always consider the reason for any discriminatory conduct, and this will include consideration of the factors that were going through the mind of an alleged discriminator. However, the possibility of subconscious discrimination does not have to be expressly considered as a separate issue unless there is an inference of subconscious bias. In this case, the Tribunal had found clear non-discriminatory reasons for the employer’s decisions and there had been no suggestion of stereotypical assumptions based on Ms Kohli’s race. Failing to expressly consider subconscious discrimination was therefore not an error of law. The EAT also noted that in any event it was highly implausible that the Tribunal was not aware of the concept or did not consider the issue.

Employers must be aware of the risk of unconscious bias in decision-making on recruitment, promotions, or disciplinary proceedings and ensure that there is a proper written record of why particular decisions were made. This case confirms that although Tribunals must consider the true reasons for an employer’s actions, there is no requirement to make an express finding on the possibility of subconscious discrimination unless this is relevant to a particular case. The extent of the risk of subconscious discrimination and the need for Tribunals to consider it expressly and separately will therefore vary depending on the precise facts and circumstances.

Latest articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
20 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JD

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning and Infrastructure chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Transport chevron