Earlier this year the EAT rejected an appeal to strike out Permila Tirkey’s (T) claim for caste discrimination. The EAT held that although ‘caste’ is not currently included in the protected characteristic of race in S.9(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010), many of the facts relevant in considering caste in many of its forms might be capable of doing so, since ‘ethnic origins’ in s.9(1)(c) has a wide and flexible ambit, including characteristics determined by descent.

The EAT therefore ruled that if T could prove facts which demonstrated that she was treated less favourably because of caste, within the protected category of ‘ethnic origins’, under race, then her claim could succeed. The EAT further held that although the Government must amend the EA 2010 to specifically state that caste is protected as an aspect of ‘race’, but has yet to do so, that did not prevent the claim proceeding on the basis of the current law.

According to reports in a number of National newspapers, including the Guardian and the Telegraph, a Cambridge tribunal decided that caste did come within the protected characteristic of race under the EA 2010 and upheld T’s claims for caste-related discrimination and failing to pay her the National Minimum Wage.

T’s caste is the Adivasi, which is known as a “servant caste”. T claimed that her employers, Ajay and Pooja Chandhok, treated her badly and in a humiliating way, which in part was because of her low caste status. The tribunal found that T was recruited by the Chandhoks because “they wanted someone who would be not merely of service but servile”. T’s unfavourable treatment, which lasted over four and a half years, included being paid as little as 11p an hour, being forced to work 18 hours a day for seven days a week, being required to sleep on a mattress on the floor, not being allowed to contact her family and having a bank account controlled by the Chandhoks.

The tribunal awarded T £183,773 to account for the underpayment of the National Minimum Wage. It is understood that there will be a further remedies hearing in November 2015 to decide on compensation for her successful caste discrimination claims. T’s legal team highlighted that the case, which proceeded under the EAT’s prior ruling on jurisdiction, demonstrated that workers treated less favourably because of caste are protected by the EA 2010.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.