Equality Act 2010, section 53

Qualifications bodies

Part 5 Work

(1)A qualifications body (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)—

(a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding upon whom to confer a relevant qualification;

(b)as to the terms on which it is prepared to confer a relevant qualification on B;

(c)by not conferring a relevant qualification on B.

(2)A qualifications body (A) must not discriminate against a person (B) upon whom A has conferred a relevant qualification—

(a)by withdrawing the qualification from B;

(b)by varying the terms on which B holds the qualification;

(c)by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3)A qualifications body must not, in relation to conferment by it of a relevant qualification, harass—

(a)a person who holds the qualification, or

(b)a person who applies for it.

(4)A qualifications body (A) must not victimise a person (B)—

(a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding upon whom to confer a relevant qualification;

(b)as to the terms on which it is prepared to confer a relevant qualification on B;

(c)by not conferring a relevant qualification on B.

(5)A qualifications body (A) must not victimise a person (B) upon whom A has conferred a relevant qualification—

(a)by withdrawing the qualification from B;

(b)by varying the terms on which B holds the qualification;

(c)by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(6)A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to a qualifications body.

(7)The application by a qualifications body of a competence standard to a disabled person is not disability discrimination unless it is discrimination by virtue of section 19.

Definitions used in section 53 1

detriment

“detriment” does not, subject to subsection (5), include conduct which amounts to harassment;

Defined in s.212(1) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 53 20

Roopesh Davda v The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

[2024] EWCA Civ 1460 · 2 December 2024Interprets

The court treated section 53 as governing discrimination by a qualifications body in its qualifying arrangements, not examination arrangements controlled by another body. (see paras [76]-[77]) The court held that treatment must arise from arrangements made by the qualifications body itself. The IAI’s examination arrangements were not arrangements made by the IFA. (see para [77]) The court applied the requirement that arrangements for deciding upon whom to confer a relevant qualification must be made by the qualifications body. The IFA’s recognition of IAI examinations did not make the IAI’s timetable treatment by the IFA. (see paras [76]-[77]) Cited only.

Pemberton v Inwood

[2018] EWCA Civ 564 · 22 March 2018

The court treated section 53 as prohibiting discrimination and harassment by a qualifications body in relation to a relevant qualification. It held that the EPML, but not the PTO, fell within that framework. (see paras [40]–[46]; [66]) The court held that the refusal of the EPML concerned a relevant qualification, but that the Schedule 9 exception was available in respect of the resulting discrimination claim. (see paras [43]–[46]; [61]–[66]) The court held that the PTO was not a relevant qualification. Its revocation therefore did not fall within the relevant-qualification protection on the facts. (see paras [40]–[42]) The court considered this provision as part of the statutory claims to which the Schedule 9 paragraph 2(3) exception could apply. (see paras [47]; [66]) The court considered the distinct prohibition on harassment by a qualifications body. It held that the EPML refusal and its ordinary communication did not satisfy the section 26 harassment test. (see paras [67]–[76]; [85]–[90])

Michalak v The General Medical Council & Ors

[2016] EWCA Civ 172 · 23 March 2016Defines

Defines the prohibitions applying to qualifications bodies, including discrimination, harassment, victimisation and detriment. The appeal concerned the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over such claims, not their merits. (see paras [7], [18], [33]) Identifies detriment as one form of unlawful treatment of a person holding a relevant qualification. It formed part of the pleaded claims, but the appeal decided jurisdiction rather than liability. (see para [11])

3 more judgments, and what each says about section 53, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Explanatory note

183.This section makes it unlawful for a qualifications body (as defined in section 54) to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when conferring relevant qualifications (which includes renewing or extending a relevant qualification). It provides that applying a competence standard to a disabled person is not disability discrimination, provided the application of the standard is justified. It also imposes a duty on qualifications bodies to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

184.This section replaces similar provisions in previous legislation. It also extends the protection to cover discrimination in the arrangements made for determining upon whom a relevant qualification should be conferred.

All the explanatory notes for the Act