Equality Act 2010
Explained for Policing

The Equality Act 2010 codified and simplified previous discrimination law by establishing nine 'protected characteristics.' In the context of policing, these are the 'immutable' or fundamental traits that can never be used as a basis for less favourable treatment. Understanding the nuances of these characteristics is vital for any officer in a supervisory or HR role.

Employment Relevance in Policing

In a standard corporate environment, these characteristics are often seen as 'HR checkboxes.' In policing, they are operational realities. For example, a disability in policing might prevent someone from being a firearms officer but not from being a detective. The Act requires that these operational boundaries are tested rigorously: is the exclusion of a disabled officer from a role strictly necessary for safety, or is it based on a legacy assumption? The same applies to sex and race; the Act forces the organization to prove that it is selecting for the role, not the tradition.

While all nine characteristics are equal in law, the 'litigation surface' in policing tends to cluster around race, sex, and disability. These are the areas where structural bottlenecks are most visible and where the friction between 'Positive Action' and the 'Meritocracy' is most pronounced. Any force that fails to have a sophisticated understanding of these nine labels is essentially flying blind into an Employment Tribunal.

Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is the most fundamental prohibition in discrimination law. It is simple, absolute, and almost impossible to justify. It states: 'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.'

In policing, 'Direct Discrimination' is the ultimate red line that must never be crossed—even in the pursuit of diversity. It is the prohibition that prevents 'well-intentioned' bias from ruining the meritocracy. If a force rejects a high-performing white male candidate for a training course solely because they want to give that slot to a minority officer to meet a target, they have committed direct discrimination. The motivation (increasing diversity) is irrelevant to the liability. The Act protects the individual, not the demographic.

The "Common Sense" Trap

Many supervisors fall into the 'Common Sense' trap: thinking that because they are trying to fix a documented inequality, they can 'bend the rules' just this once. The law does not allow for this. Section 13 is a strict liability provision. There is no 'balanced' justification for direct discrimination (except in very rare cases of 'genuine occupational requirement,' such as needing a female officer for a specific search). In 99% of policing decisions, treating someone less favourably because of who they are is a legal suicide mission.

Case Law Reality: Forces that have tried to 'fast-track' demographics without legal rigor have consistently been struck down by tribunals, resulting in costly payouts and the immediate dismantling of the very diversity initiatives they were trying to protect.

Ultimately, Section 13 is the 'Protection of the Majority' just as much as it is the 'Protection of the Minority.' It ensures that the 'Default Profile' officer—traditionally the white, able-bodied male—is not sidelined or penalised for an identity they did not choose. Without this protection, the institution would no longer be a meritocracy; it would be a political spoils system. The Equality Act ensures that every officer, regardless of their background, can look at the rank above them and know that the door is open to talent, and talent alone.

While Section 13 (Direct Discrimination) is an absolute prohibition, Section 19 (Indirect Discrimination) is more nuanced. It occurs when a force applies a 'Provision, Criterion or Practice' (PCP) which is neutral on its face but puts persons who share a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared with persons who do not share it. Unlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination can be lawful if the force can show that the PCP is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.'

In the high-stakes world of policing, PCPs are everywhere: fitness tests, height requirements (now largely abolished), shift patterns, residency rules, and promotion criteria. Indirect discrimination law ensures that these 'rules' are not just legacy baggage but are tied to operational necessity. If a rule excludes a disproportionate number of women or minority officers, the force must prove that the rule is actually required to do the job.

The 'Objective Justification' Defense

The core battleground of Section 19 is Objective Justification. To win this defense, a force must demonstrate four things: (1) They have a legitimate aim (e.g., public safety, operational efficiency); (2) The PCP is capable of achieving that aim; (3) The PCP is necessary (there is no less discriminatory way to achieve it); and (4) The PCP's impact is balanced against the benefit.

The 'Legacy PCP' Risk: Many police PCPs exist simply because "that's how we've always done it." These are the most vulnerable to Section 19 challenges. Every force should conduct a 'PCP Audit' to ensure every barrier is backed by data, not just tradition.

Systemic Impact on Career Velocity

Indirect discrimination is often invisible. It doesn't look like a 'No Blacks' sign; it looks like a 'Minimum 5 years in Response' requirement for CID. If minority officers are disproportionately stalled in Response due to other factors, this 5-year requirement becomes a barrier that suppresses their career velocity. Section 19 forces HR departments to ask: "Does a CID officer really need 5 years in Response, or would 3 years plus a specific course suffice?" By challenging these 'hidden hurdles,' the Act creates a more fluid and efficient internal market for talent.

The financial stakes for Section 19 are immense. Because indirect discrimination often affects whole groups, a successful challenge can lead to 'class-action' style payouts or the total invalidation of a promotion round. For the tactical commander, Section 19 is a reminder that every 'standard' you set must be defensible in front of a judge who doesn't care about 'police culture,' only about proportionality.

While most of the Equality Act is about 'stopping' something (discrimination), Section 20 is about 'doing' something. It imposes a positive, mandatory duty on police forces to make 'reasonable adjustments' for disabled officers and staff. This is not an optional extra; it is a core legal requirement meant to ensure that a disabled person's talent is not wasted due to a physical or procedural barrier.

In policing, the duty of Section 20 is frequently misunderstood. It is often seen as a 'gift' from the organization, when in law, it is a debt owed to the officer. The duty arises whenever a PCP or a physical feature puts a disabled person at a 'substantial disadvantage' compared to those who are not disabled.

What is 'Reasonable' in Policing?

The word 'reasonable' is the fulcrum of this duty. What is reasonable for a billion-pound Metropolitan Police Service may not be reasonable for a small territorial force. However, for most UK police forces, the bar for 'unreasonableness' is very high. Factors include the effectiveness of the adjustment, the cost, the force's resources, and the impact on operational safety. Cost alone is rarely a valid reason for a police force to refuse an adjustment.

Anticipatory Duty: While the specific duty of S.20 is to the individual, the PSED (S.149) suggests that forces should be 'anticipatory.' They shouldn't wait for an officer to struggle; they should design kanilang processes (like promotion boards) to be accessible by default.

Psychological Displacement & Retention

Failure to make reasonable adjustments is one of the fastest ways to lose a high-performing officer. When an officer who has given 15 years to the service develops a condition (like PTSD or a chronic illness) and then finds the organization 'fighting' them over a simple adjustment, the resulting moral injury is profound. Section 20 ensures that the force's duty of care isn't just a slogan; it's a legal obligation that keeps talent in the organization when they are most vulnerable. In an era of recruitment crisis, Section 20 is a vital retention tool.

If Sections 13 and 19 are the 'brakes' of discrimination law, Section 149—the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)—is the 'engine.' It does not just prohibit bad behavior; it mandates active progress. It requires all public authorities, including every police force in the UK, to have 'due regard' to the need to: (1) Eliminate discrimination; (2) Advance equality of opportunity; and (3) Foster good relations between different groups.

The PSED is the reason why police forces have Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) departments, why they publish workforce data, and why they conduct Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs). It is a procedural duty, meaning that the way a force makes a decision is just as important as the decision itself.

The 'Due Regard' Test (The Brown Principles)

Courts have established the 'Brown Principles' to determine if a force has met its PSED. 'Due regard' must be exercised with an open mind; it is not a 'tick-box' exercise to be done after a policy is finalized. It must be integrated into the decision-making process. For a Chief Officer, this means that before signing off on a new shift pattern or a recruitment campaign, they must have evidence in front of them showing how it affects different demographics. If they don't have that evidence, their decision is potentially unlawful.

The EIA Safeguard: An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is the written proof of 'due regard.' A policy without a robust EIA is a policy waiting to be struck down by a Judicial Review. It is the 'Body Worn Video' of policy making.

Fostering Good Relations

The third limb of the PSED—fostering good relations—is where policing often distinguishes itself from other public sectors. In policing, this limb is tied to Public Consent. If a force is seen as 'exclusive' or biased in its workforce, its ability to foster good relations with a diverse public is compromised. The PSED effectively codifies the 'Peelian' principle that the police are the public and the public are the police. It makes 'Workforce Diversity' a statutory requirement for 'Public Policing.' Without the PSED, the force would be a static bureaucracy; with it, it is a dynamic organization legally required to evolve with society.

Section 158 of the Equality Act is the primary tool used by UK police forces to address workforce imbalances. Unlike Direct Discrimination (S.13), which is a prohibition, S.158 is a permissive power. It allows a force to take action that would otherwise be discriminatory if that action is a 'proportionate means' of addressing a disadvantage, a different need, or underrepresentation of a protected group.

The crucial distinction between S.158 Positive Action and Positive Discrimination is the stage of the process. S.158 is focused on the pipeline. It is about encouragement, preparation, and support. It allows a force to 'level the playing field' so that when candidates reach the point of selection, they are competing on equal terms of skill and polish.

The Three Triggers of Section 158

To use the S.158 power, a force must 'reasonably think' that: (A) Persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic; (B) Their needs are different from persons who do not share it; or (C) Participation in an activity is disproportionately low. In policing, this 'thinking' must be backed by robust workforce data. You cannot launch a S.158 scheme based on 'feeling' or 'intuition'; it requires a mathematical evidence base.

The 'Meritocracy' Buffer: S.158 allows you to help an officer become more competitive, but it does not allow you to lower the standard they must meet. The pass mark remains the pass mark.

Financial & Tactical Benefits

Forces that use S.158 effectively see a better return on investment in their recruitment and promotion processes. By preparing a wider pool of talent, they increase the quality of the candidates reaching the final board. It is a tool for excellence, not just equity. Tactically, S.158 is how a force builds its 'internal legitimacy'—showing that talent is recognized regardless of where it starts.

Section 159 is the most specific and controversial provision of the Equality Act in policing. While S.158 is about the pipeline, S.159 is about the moment of choice. It allows a force to treat a candidate from an underrepresented group more favourably than another candidate at the point of selection (recruitment or promotion) if, and only if, they are 'as qualified' as each other.

In policing, this is often called the 'tie-breaker.' It is a very narrow power that requires extreme legal care. It cannot be applied as a blanket policy (e.g., "we will always choose the minority candidate in a tie"). Each decision must be a case-by-case assessment of the two individual candidates.

The 'As Qualified' Requirement

The legal threshold for 'as qualified' is exceptionally high. In the context of the NPPF (National Police Promotion Framework), this would mean two candidates having identical scores across every competency tested. If Candidate A scores 72% and Candidate B (from an underrepresented group) scores 71%, S.159 cannot be used. Candidate A must be given the post. S.159 only triggers when the merit of the two individuals is essentially indistinguishable.

The Risk of Judicial Review

Because S.159 involves a direct preference at the point of choice, it is the most litigated section of the Act. If a force uses S.159 without proving the 'equal merit' component, they have committed Direct Discrimination (S.13). For this reason, many police HR departments are wary of using S.159, preferring to rely on the much safer and more effective pipe-line interventions of S.158. However, in high-precision selection processes where two candidates are truly identical, S.159 remains a lawful tool for achieving the strategic goals of the PSED.

Despite 15 years of operating under the Equality Act, UK police forces continue to make avoidable legal errors. These failings aren't usually born of malice, but of 'procedural laziness' or an over-reliance on legacy assumptions. For the individual officer, these failings represent a barrier to their career; for the force, they represent a recurring litigation expense.

1. 'Post-Hoc' Equality Impact Assessments

The most common failing is the 'Tick-Box EIA.' This occurs when a force designs a major change (like a shift pattern) and then fills in an EIA at the very end to 'approve' the decision they've already made. Courts have consistently held that this is unlawful and a breach of the PSED. An EIA must be a live document that actually influences the design of the policy.

2. Confusing Positive Action with Discrimination

Forces often launch 'Positive Action' initiatives that accidentally cross the line into 'Positive Discrimination.' This usually happens when enthusiasm for a target leads to the lowering of standards or the exclusion of the majority from a process. If a 'mentoring' scheme (lawful) becomes a 'reserved interview slot' (unlawful), the entire initiative is poisoned legally.

3. Fragmented Workforce Data

You cannot justify a S.158 or S.159 intervention without proof. Many forces struggle to maintain the 'granular' data required to show why a specific group is disadvantaged. If a force says "we think women are disadvantaged in CID" but their data only shows "women are disadvantaged in the force as a whole," their CID-specific intervention is legally vulnerable. Evidence must be local and specific to the role being targeted.

The 'Grievance' Lifecycle: Most ET claims start as a poorly handled internal grievance. Forces that 'defensively' shut down questions about equality often end up spending ten times the amount in court fees later. Transparency is the best litigation shield.

4. Failure to Monitor the 'Informal' Economy

Discrimination in policing often happens in the 'informal economy' of the force: who gets chosen for a project, who gets invited to a networking lunch, who gets a 'heads-up' about a post. The Equality Act applies to all employment benefits, including informal ones. Forces that fail to monitor these informal gateways often find they have a 'diverse workforce' but a 'non-diverse leadership,' creating a resentment that eventually erupts into legal action.

As we move through 2026, the 'risk envelope' for police forces has evolved. The legacy issues of the 2010s (overt harassment and physical barriers) have been largely replaced by more subtle, systemic risks. Understanding these modern risks is essential for any leader who wants to avoid the next 'landmark case' in the Employment Tribunal.

The Algorithm & Bias

Many forces are now using 'predictive' software for workforce planning, shift allocation, and even initial recruitment screening. The Equality Act applies to the output of these systems just as much as it does to a human manager. If an algorithm inadvertently prioritizes officers with a 'continuous' work history for a specialist role, it may be indirectly discriminating against women who have taken maternity leave. Forces must be able to 'explain' the logic of their AI systems to ensure they aren't automating bias.

The 'Remote Work' Disparity

The post-pandemic shift toward hybrid work for non-frontline roles has created a new 'two-tier' workforce. Officers in roles that can work from home (often specialists or detectives) usually skewed towards officers with disability that frontline Response officers do not. If certain protected groups are disproportionately excluded from hybrid-capable roles, this creates a Section 19 Indirect Discrimination risk. 2026 leaders must ensure the 'privilege' of flexibility is distributed through a fair and transparent system.

The 'Social Media' Boundary: 2026 case law is increasingly focusing on what officers say in 'private' WhatsApp groups or on social media. Forces that fail to take robust action against discriminatory culture in these digital spaces are being held liable for creating a 'hostile environment' under Section 26.

For a long time, the law of Intersectionality was a theoretical concept. Section 14 of the Equality Act was designed to allow claims for 'dual discrimination'—for example, being treated less favourably because you are a Black Woman, not just because you are Black or because you are a Woman. While S.14 was never formally 'commenced' by the government, the principle is being applied through Section 13 by 'stacking' characteristics.

In policing, this is critical. A force might be able to show they treat women well and they treat minority men well, but if they fail to promote minority women, they are still failing the legitimacy test. Intersectionality forces a more sophisticated analysis of workforce data: we must move beyond 'Protected Group X' and see the individual at the crossing point of multiple traits. Failure to do this results in 'blind spots' where specific, highly capable subgroups remain stalled in their careers despite overall 'diverse' hiring numbers.

To assist supervisors and HR practitioners, the following matrix outlines common policing scenarios and their likely legal outcome under the Equality Act 2010.

This matrix is not a substitute for legal advice but serves as a 'Ready Reckoner' for the primary legal thresholds. The consistent theme is that interventions in the pipeline (preparation) are generally lawful, while interventions at the point of choice (selection) require extreme precision.