Marital Status Discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that less favourable treatment due to marriage to a particular person does not amount to marital status discrimination.
Employment Tribunal Claim for Direct Discrimination
In the case of Ellis v Bacon and anor, Ms Bacon started working for Advance Fire Solutions Ltd (AFS Ltd) in 2005, and later married AFS Ltd's managing director and majority shareholder, Mr Bacon. In 2017, Mr Bacon was replaced as managing director by Mr Ellis, but remained as the majority shareholder.
Ms Bacon and Mr Bacon subsequently divorced. Ms Bacon was falsely accused of misusing company IT equipment and suspended. She was removed as a director and did not receive share dividends. A baseless complaint was made to the police about her.
Ms Bacon was dismissed by Mr Ellis in June 2018. She brought an Employment Tribunal claim for direct discrimination on the grounds of her marital status, alleging she had been unfairly treated by Mr Ellis because of her marriage to Mr Bacon.
What Is the Test for Direct Discrimination on the Grounds of Marital Status?
Marriage and civil partnership is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). Section 13 of the Act states that a person will directly discriminate against another if, because of a protected characteristic, they treat that person less favourably than they treat, or would treat, others.
What Did the Employment Tribunal Decide?
The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Ellis had discriminated against Ms Bacon because she was married. It found Mr Ellis had sided with Mr Bacon in the marital dispute and was acting at his behest in the way he treated Ms Bacon. Mr Ellis appealed to the EAT.
What Did the EAT Decide?
The EAT allowed Mr Ellis' appeal. The correct question was whether Ms Bacon had been treated less favourably by Mr Ellis because of her marital status, rather than because she was married to a particular person. The Tribunal had not asked this question, and had also failed to consider whether Mr Ellis would have acted differently towards somebody who was in a close relationship with Mr Bacon but not married to him.
Whilst the EAT allowed the appeal, it did so regretfully, acknowledging that Ms Bacon had indeed been treated badly by Mr Ellis.
What Can Employers Learn From This Decision?
This decision demonstrates the limited scope of marital status protection. The protection applies to those who are treated unfavourably because of their marital status or civil partnership. However, it does not operate to protect individuals who are treated unfavourably because of their marriage to a particular person.
