The House of Lords held that the DDA 1995 (now the Equality Act 2010), to the extent that the provisions of the Act required it, permitted—and sometimes obliged—employers to treat a disabled person more favourably than others. This may even require transferring them to a higher level position without the need for a competitive interview.

One of the directors of the respondent company made a statement to the effect that, although the company was seeking to recruit, it could not employ ‘immigrants’ because its customers were reluctant to give them access to their private residences for the duration of the works.

The European Court of Justice held that such a statement concerning candidates of a particular ethnic or racial origin constituted direct discrimination under Art 2(2)(a) Directive 2000/43. Such a public declaration was clearly likely to dissuade some candidates from applying for jobs with the employer.

Ms Ladele was a registrar of births, deaths, and marriages in Islington. She was a strongly committed Christian and believed that marriage should be an exclusive and lifelong union between a man and a woman. In December 2005, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force and Ms Ladele was expected, as part of her job, to register civil partnerships between same-sex couples. She refused to do this and brought a claim against the council relying upon the religion or belief regulations (now in the Equality Act 2010).

She lost her claim because the council’s aim, as accepted by the European Court of Human Rights, was to provide an efficient service and a wish to respect the homosexual community in the same manner as the heterosexual community. The Court held that the council had a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were proportionate.

A school refused to change its school uniform policy to allow the wearing of turbans. This stopped a boy’s application to join the school because his father wished him to be brought up as a practising Sikh, which in turn required the wearing of a turban.

The House of Lords decided that there were a number of conditions to be met before a group could call itself a racial group (see main text).

This case concerned compulsory retirement and whether it was possible for an employer to do this even though the default retirement age has now been abolished.

It is possible to have an employer-justified retirement age providing that there is a legitimate aim and that the means of achieving this aim are proportionate.