Discrimination claim can be brought forward by a Limited Company

The issue in question was whether a limited company, as a member of a Limited Liability Partnership, bring a direct discrimination claim for detrimental treatment because of the protected characteristic of an associated person?

Yes, held the EAT in EAD Solicitors v Abrams.

Mr Abrams was a member of a limited liability partnership (LLP). He was due to retire and set up a limited company of which he was the sole director to take his place as a member of the LLP at which point he withdrew from membership of the LLP. The limited company, as a member of the LLP, was entitled to receive the profit share Mr Abrams would have received had he continued as a member, and for its part it agreed to supply the services of an appropriate fee-earner to the LLP. Though the parties expected that this would be Mr Abrams himself, there was no obligation that this should be the case. Accordingly, he was neither an employee serving under a contract of employment nor a worker, nor did he have any continuing contractual relationship with the LLP.

Mr Abrams was the First Claimant and the Company that he had set up was the Second at the Tribunal. The LLP objected to the Company offering Mr Abrams’ services once he had reached the time at which it had been agreed that had he then been a member of the LLP in his own right and under a contract to work for it he would retire. It objected to the limited company continuing as a member of the LLP.

The parties were in dispute as to whether the Company continued to be a member or whether it has suffered any other detriment by reason of the age of Mr Abrams.

Mr Justice Langstaff hearing the appeal made the following statement at the appeal – “The argument for the Claimant before me as it was before the Judge is simplicity itself: a person may include a corporation. Within section 13, the opening words “A person (A)” must include a corporate body, for it is familiar to any employment lawyer that many corporations are alleged to be discriminators and no one has so far considered that is inappropriate. If, then, the word “person” is to be used at the outset of section 31 as including a corporation, there is no proper basis for reading the same word, albeit introduced by “another”, in any different sense where it appears later in the same section. There is no contrary intention appearing in the statute.”

He rejected the argument that only an individual can be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 because only an individual can have a protected characteristic.

  Comment

Detriment is only something we think about as a person suffering, not just at work but also in our private lives. But, do we ever think about an organisation suffering in the same vein?  I very much doubt that we do, this case highlights that mindfulness of actions and words needs to be an uppermost thought.