A promotion goes to a less experienced colleague after a manager says the role needs someone who is “not likely to take time off for children”. An employee returning from cancer treatment is told they cannot work from home, despite medical advice and an arrangement already working for others. These are the sorts of workplace situations that can lead to discrimination claim examples – but the legal position always turns on the facts, the reason for the treatment and the evidence available.
Under the Equality Act 2010, unlawful discrimination can happen during recruitment, employment, promotion, training, pay, disciplinary action, redundancy and dismissal. For employees and employers alike, identifying the right legal issue early can shape how a grievance is handled, what evidence is retained and whether a tribunal claim can be avoided or pursued effectively.
What makes a discrimination claim?
A discrimination claim requires more than showing that a workplace decision was unfair, abrupt or poorly managed. The treatment must relate to one of the protected characteristics recognised by the Equality Act 2010: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation.
The law protects applicants, employees, workers, agency workers and, in some circumstances, former employees. A person may also have a claim where they are treated badly because they are associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, such as a disabled child or partner, or because they are wrongly perceived to have one.
The key question is usually why the treatment occurred. Employers may give a legitimate business explanation. The individual bringing the claim may believe discrimination was involved. Documents, comparators, comments, timing and the consistency of decision-making often determine which explanation is accepted.
Discrimination claim examples at work
Direct discrimination
Direct discrimination happens where someone is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. It is often the most recognisable form, although proving the reason for a decision can still be difficult.
For example, a qualified applicant is rejected after an interviewer says clients would prefer “a younger face”. If age influenced the decision, this may be direct age discrimination. Unlike some other forms of discrimination, direct age discrimination can sometimes be justified, but only where the employer can show the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That is a demanding test, not a general permission to favour younger or older staff.
Another example is a manager excluding a Muslim employee from client-facing work because they wear a hijab. An employer’s concern about assumed client preferences will not normally justify treatment based on religion or belief.
Direct sex discrimination might arise if a woman is passed over for a management role because a decision-maker assumes she will be less committed after having children. It does not matter whether the decision-maker considers the assumption well-meaning. Stereotypes are not a sound basis for employment decisions.
Indirect discrimination
Indirect discrimination is usually less obvious. It can arise where an employer applies the same provision, criterion or practice to everyone, but it puts people sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
Consider a business that requires all staff to work full-time with no exceptions. This may place women at a particular disadvantage because women are more likely to have primary caring responsibilities. A refusal of a flexible-working request is not automatically discriminatory, but the requirement could be challenged if the employer cannot show it is a proportionate way of meeting a legitimate business need.
A blanket rule requiring employees to be clean shaven could disadvantage some Sikh or Muslim men whose faith affects their ability to comply. The employer would need to consider whether the rule is genuinely necessary, whether health and safety equipment is relevant, and whether a less discriminatory alternative is available.
This is where employers need care. A policy can be neutrally worded and consistently applied, yet still create legal risk. The question is not simply whether everyone was treated the same, but whether the rule’s impact can be justified.
Disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments
Disability claims often involve a series of decisions rather than a single incident. A disability is a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. Conditions such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV are treated as disabilities from diagnosis. Other conditions, including anxiety, depression, long Covid or neurodiversity, may meet the definition depending on their effects.
An employer may discriminate if it treats a disabled employee unfavourably because of something arising from their disability. For instance, dismissing someone for disability-related absence without properly considering medical evidence, adjustments or alternatives may create risk. The employer may defend the decision if it can justify it, but a genuine and informed process is essential.
There is also a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a workplace provision, physical feature or lack of auxiliary aid places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. Examples may include altering start times, providing specialist equipment, adjusting performance targets, allowing home working, offering a quieter workspace or giving additional time in a recruitment assessment.
What is reasonable depends on the role, the employee’s needs, the employer’s size and resources, cost, operational impact and the likely effectiveness of the adjustment. Employers are not required to remove every disadvantage, but they should consult, obtain appropriate information and keep an open mind. A formulaic refusal is rarely a safe approach.
Pregnancy, maternity and sex discrimination
Pregnancy and maternity protection is particularly strong. An employee does not need to compare herself with a man to show pregnancy or maternity discrimination. If she is treated unfavourably because she is pregnant, has a pregnancy-related illness, is taking or has taken maternity leave, or is exercising a related right, that may be unlawful.
Examples include selecting an employee for redundancy because she is on maternity leave, reducing her commission because of pregnancy-related absence, or excluding her from a promotion process because she will soon start leave. There are specific redundancy protections for those on maternity leave and, in certain cases, pregnancy and family leave periods. Employers should take advice before finalising any selection exercise involving a protected employee.
Harassment and victimisation
Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It can be a single serious incident or a pattern of conduct. Repeated jokes about a colleague’s age, racist comments in a team messaging group, or mockery of an employee’s gender identity may all amount to harassment.
Intent is not the whole test. A person may say they were joking, but a tribunal will consider the recipient’s perception, the circumstances and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have the relevant effect.
Victimisation happens when someone is treated badly because they have complained about discrimination, supported another person’s complaint or done another protected act. For example, excluding an employee from training after they gave evidence in a colleague’s race discrimination grievance could amount to victimisation. Employers should ensure that a complaint does not quietly become a career penalty.
Evidence that can strengthen or weaken a claim
Employment tribunal claims are decided on evidence, not suspicion alone. A clear contemporaneous record can be valuable. Employees should retain relevant emails, meeting notes, rota changes, appraisal documents, job adverts, policies and a dated account of what was said and who was present. They should avoid taking confidential material they are not entitled to access.
Comparators can help, but they are not essential in every case. An employee may point to a colleague in materially similar circumstances who was treated more favourably. In other cases, discriminatory comments, implausible explanations or a sudden change in treatment after disclosure of a disability or pregnancy may be more significant.
Employers should preserve relevant records once a concern is raised. A prompt, impartial investigation, clear reasons for decisions and consistent application of policies can reduce risk. Poorly documented management decisions are harder to defend, even where the underlying decision may have been reasonable.
Acting promptly: grievances and tribunal time limits
Raising a formal grievance can give an employer the opportunity to investigate and resolve the issue. It may also help clarify the employee’s concerns. However, a grievance does not stop the tribunal time limit from running.
In most discrimination cases, a claim must be started by notifying Acas for early conciliation within three months less one day of the act complained of. Where there is a continuing course of conduct, the calculation may be more complex. Early conciliation pauses the clock in accordance with statutory rules, but it is risky to leave notification until the final day.
A tribunal has discretion to extend the time limit for discrimination claims where it considers this just and equitable, but this should not be relied upon. The tribunal will examine the reasons for delay, the length of it and the prejudice to each party. Early legal advice gives both employees and employers more options, whether the best route is a grievance outcome, negotiated settlement or tribunal representation.
Workplace concerns rarely improve through assumption or delay. A careful review of the facts, the relevant policy and the available evidence can help protect an individual’s rights or allow an employer to correct course before a disagreement becomes a formal dispute.