Discrimination/Equality Act 2010 short question

Hi, would you please advise me on this pretty small issue?

A goes to a charity (C) and wants to volunteer, but they tell A they do not recruit homosexuals.

What law exactly does C break? Equality Act 2010 makes it clear when one discriminates against the other, but I can't find to whom the Act applies to - A doesn't have any contract with C so how can C be liable? How would you answer this question on an exam?

Any help is much appreciated.

Hi, would you please advise me on this pretty small issue?

A goes to a charity (C) and wants to volunteer, but they tell A they do not recruit homosexuals.

What law exactly does C break? Equality Act 2010 makes it clear when one discriminates against the other, but I can't find to whom the Act applies to - A doesn't have any contract with C so how can C be liable? How would you answer this question on an exam?

Any help is much appreciated.

S.39 EA 2010.

x v Mid-Sussex CAB [2011]

Reading both of those should give you an idea of the answer. (Basically, you're half right and half wrong as far as I remember)

S.39 EA 2010.

x v Mid-Sussex CAB [2011]

Reading both of those should give you an idea of the answer. (Basically, you're half right and half wrong as far as I remember)

Oh, you mean the issue whether volunteers fall under the scope of the Act under X v Mid-Sussex?

The Court of Appeal hinted that volunteers do fall outside the scope, but surely this can't be right, is this a gap in the law of discrimination? (Unless the SC changes the CA's decision)

Oh, you mean the issue whether volunteers fall under the scope of the Act under X v Mid-Sussex?

The Court of Appeal hinted that volunteers do fall outside the scope, but surely this can't be right, is this a gap in the law of discrimination? (Unless the SC changes the CA's decision)

Well, put it this way:

Are they being paid? Nope. Are they employees? Nope.

Now we could consider the widest definition of worker which is the EU law version. Are they performing a service in return for remuneration? Nope, they're performing a service for nothing.

Not hard to see why a volunteer might fall outside the scope of chapter 5.

I think the argument was that the EU directive states:

1. Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:

(a) conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion.

And that it's while a volunteer worker might not be 'employment', it's not so clear that a volunteer isn't in 'occupation', and the directive doesn't use 'worker' in 1(a) so that perhaps the UK implementation of it is wrong. Watching the case it seemed a fairly weak argument to me.

Well, put it this way:

Are they being paid? Nope. Are they employees? Nope.

Now we could consider the widest definition of worker which is the EU law version. Are they performing a service in return for remuneration? Nope, they're performing a service for nothing.

Not hard to see why a volunteer might fall outside the scope of chapter 5.

Well I don't think that you're necessarily right by saying the scope of a worker by definition of EU law is the widest. The Equality Act 2010 section 83 says:

"employment is a contract personally to do work."

That's wider than the scope of a worker, but then let's look at volunteers - surely they personally work and have a contract don't they? Yes, their consideration is not remuneration but something else e.g. work experience, but they still have a contract personally to do work right?

No, that's the same as the scope of a worker, if not narrower. A contract of employment here would imply I performed some form of service in return for some form of remuneration.

Not necessarily. Going back to me and Girl Guiding, I never volunteered to get work experience. I volunteered because I absolutely loved helping out. So I was also a volunteer. I showed up, I did work, but I didn't get anything except enjoyment out of it (and occasionally cake. Also a pretty large collection of various easter and christmas crafts which I made. But I didn't volunteer for these things and would not have received them if I didn't make them myself). So how did I have a contract? I received no valuable consideration whatsoever or, rather, I was promised no valuable consideration and the things I did receive were not due to me volunteering.

I've done quite a few other volunteering stints and I was not given remuneration for any of them and I did not do them on the expectation of gaining work experience. That's pretty much the point of volunteering. In addition, there's no mutuality of obligations in vounteering.

Anyway, this isn't a decided point and the above is my personal opinion. You asked how the point could be debatable and I told you how it could be debatable, not that that was what the Supreme Court should decide, after I answered your original question on the law as it stands (or as my lecturer told us it stands at any rate ). Chill out and relax in the meantime. They'll make a decision eventually and we can go on with our lives in merry harmony

PS. And just to add, I dunno who negged you but it wasn't me. Last time I negged anyone was last year. Just thought I'd say it in case you thought I was somehow offended that you have an opinion and decided to express it

lol, just so you know, the truth is someone on the TSR doesn't like me and keeps stalking to give negative feedback. I can send you literally dozens of my ordinary, reasonable, unoffensive posts that were given negative rep. Check this post out in a week, you'll see another neg rep.

But thanks for your comments, I see what you mean. Let's wait for the Law Lords to decide the faith of volunteers!

P.S. This has just reminded me, if Equality Act 2010 does not cover volunteers, then what other protection can they get against discrimination?