Types of discrimination

Published: 05 August 2010

The Equality Act 2010 outlaws a number of types of unjustified discrimination.

Direct discrimination

Treating somebody less favourably because of their disability, for example, on the basis of prejudice or assumptions.

For example: a property management company responds to requests for maintenance issues more slowly for one tenant than for other tenants, because the tenant has HIV.

Combined discrimination

When direct discrimination arises out of a combination of two protected characteristics.

For example: not providing a service to African men (whereas African women, and men of other ethnic groups are served).

Indirect discrimination

A policy or way of working, applied to all customers or service users, which in fact puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. Unless the service provider can show that what they have done is objectively justified, this is indirect discrimination.

For example: an outdoor activity centre is concerned about health and safety and requires all participants to have a medical certificate of ‘good health’. This is likely to disadvantage people with HIV, although there may be no objective reason why they should not take part in the centre’s activities.

Discrimination arising from a disability

Treating somebody less favourably and without justification, for a reason arising as a consequence of their disability. (This only applies to disability, and not to other protected characteristics such as race, gender and sexual orientation.)

For example: an outdoor activity centre excludes a man with HIV because they believe that there is a risk of HIV transmission if he is injured there. Unless the activity centre can demonstrate that this decision is based on an objective risk assessment, this is likely to be discrimination arising from a disability.

The concept is similar to, but legally distinct from, indirect discrimination.

Failing to make reasonable adjustments

So that people with disabilities can use the services of a business to a similar standard as non-disabled people, the service provider may need to adjust the way it does things. (This only applies to disability, and not to other protected characteristics such as race, gender and sexual orientation.)

For example: making a building accessible to people in wheelchairs.

While organisations cannot be expected to anticipate the needs of every person who may use their service, if a person with HIV tries to use a service but finds there is a barrier that someone without HIV would not face, he or she can bring the matter to the attention of the service provider. The organisation must consider making adjustments that are ‘reasonable’ (likely to be of benefit and not too costly given the organisation’s resources).

Harassment

Upsetting and offensive behaviour related to disability.

For example: a member of staff is verbally abusive to a customer in relation to their HIV status.

Victimisation

Treating someone less favourably because they have complained about discrimination in some way (or supported another person’s complaint), including orally, in a letter, or in a written grievance.

For example: a patient supports another person’s complaint that a GP’s surgery has unlawfully discriminated against them. The patient is later told that they will have to find a new GP. If this is because they supported the complaint, this is likely to be victimisation.

Discrimination against people perceived to have HIV

The law protects against direct discrimination and harassment when a person is thought, whether correctly or not, to have HIV or another disability.

For example: a gay man is assumed to have HIV, and is refused service for that reason.

Discrimination against people associated with people with HIV

The law protects against direct discrimination and harassment because a person has an association with a person with HIV (partner, family members, friends etc.).

For example: a child is excluded from some school activities after it becomes known that her father has HIV.

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.
Community Consensus Statement on Access to HIV Treatment and its Use for Prevention

Together, we can make it happen

We can end HIV soon if people have equal access to HIV drugs as treatment and as PrEP, and have free choice over whether to take them.

Launched today, the Community Consensus Statement is a basic set of principles aimed at making sure that happens.

The Community Consensus Statement is a joint initiative of AVAC, EATG, MSMGF, GNP+, HIV i-Base, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, ITPC and NAM/aidsmap
close

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.