Research and analysis

Appendix

Published 29 October 2026

1. Algorithmic classification methodology in detail

1.1 Sourcing cases

The larger sample of relevant discrimination cases was made up of all judgements on British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) which met all of the following criteria:

• dated between the 4 March 2022 and 4 March 2025
• heard before a court or tribunal with jurisdiction in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or UK-wide
• includes at least one of the following: “discrimination”, “discriminated”, “protected characteristic”
• includes reference to a specific protected characteristics (according to the keyword searches detailed in the following section)

Note that BAILII does not provide full coverage of court and tribunal decisions. It includes only those that have been published, meaning many first-instance and some appeal decisions are not available in the database. As a result, the research sample is skewed towards decisions that have been selected for publication and provided to BAILII – typically those considered legally significant, of public interest, or carrying precedential value. 

1.2 Keyword searches used

A legal case was classified as likely involving a certain protected characteristic (PC) if its documentation contained at least one of the relevant keywords, detailed below. These keywords were selected through iterative testing with the intention of capturing as many relevant cases as possible while not introducing an unreasonable number of false positives.

A legal case was identified with a given type of discrimination if its documentation contained at least one of the relevant keywords, detailed below. Note that therefore any cases in which a given type of discrimination seems relevant but is not directly mentioned in one of the given formats, will not be identified with a given type of discrimination

Age

Age discrimination, protected characteristic of age, ageism, ageist, basis of age, grounds of age

Gender reassignment

Basis of gender reassignment, grounds of gender reassignment, trans woman, trans man, trans person, transgender person, transexual, transgender man, transgender woman

Marriage and civil partnership

Grounds of marital status, marriage discrimination

Pregnancy and maternity

Maternity and Pregnancy Rights, Pregnancy and discrimination, her pregnancy, his pregnancy, their pregnancy, grounds of pregnancy, grounds of maternity

Disability

Has a learning disability, has a mental disability, has a physical disability, disability discrimination, his disability, her disability, their disability, grounds of disability

Race

Racism, racist, racial discrimination, race discrimination, on the grounds of race, discrimination race

Religion or belief

Belief discrimination, grounds of religion, grounds of belief, religious discrimination, his religion, her religion, their religion, protected characteristic of religion, protected characteristic of belief

Sex

Sex discrimination, protected characteristic of sex, sexist, sexism, grounds of sex, basis of sex, grounds of her sex, grounds of his sex, grounds of their sex

Sexual orientation

Basis of sexual orientation, sexual orientation discrimination, his sexuality, her sexuality, their sexuality, her sexual orientation, his sexual orientation, their sexual orientation

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination, direct and indirect discrimination, direct race discrimination, direct and indirect race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, direct and indirect sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, direct and indirect disability discrimination, direct age discrimination, direct and indirect age discrimination

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination, indirect race discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, indirect age discrimination

Victimisation

Victimisation

Harassment

Harassment

1.3 Manual verification of protected characteristics

False positives were present in the algorithm’s classification of cases by protected characteristics involved. These were present for several reasons, including case law involving other protected characteristics being cited or reference to alleged discriminatory actions perpetrated by the claimant. 

To adjust prevalence estimates to account for false positives, cases with multiple protected characteristics were stratified into 2 groups: those classified as involving 2 protected characteristics, and those classified as involving 3 or more. This stratification was justified by the assumption that cases classified as involving 3 or more protected characteristics were likely to have a higher prevalence of false positives as cases which reference one irrelevant protected characteristic may have a stronger likelihood of mentioning a second. 

Cases were randomly sampled from each strata (57 with 2 protected characteristics, and 54 with 3 or more protected characteristics which, though a smaller part of the sample, had higher rates of false positives) and analysed by researchers to assess the prevalence of false positives. The following table details the resulting observed rates of false positives, and confidence bounds for the rate of false positives in the sample based on these observations. 

False negatives were assessed on an ad hoc basis and used to iterate keywords. 

Prevalence estimates were not adjusted for false negatives as there would be a need to verify an extremely large number to adjust with a reasonable uncertainty window. For this reason, and reasons further discussed later in this section, it is not unlikely that prevalence of discrimination on the basis of multiple protected characteristics is an underestimate.

Type of case	Observed percentage in random sample	80% confidence lower bound of percentage across all cases	80% confidence upper bound of percentage across all cases
Cases classified as involving 2 protected characteristics which actually only involve a single one	33.3	25.8	41.8
Cases classified as involving 3 or more protected characteristics which actually only involve a single one	27.8	20.7	36.1
Cases classified as involving 3 or more protected characteristics which actually involved only 2 protected characteristics	24.1	17.4	32.3

Confidence intervals were calculated using Wilson Score intervals. Illustratively, an estimate for the proportion of the cases in the overall sample which involve 2 or more protected characteristics, and the upper bound on this figure were obtained in the following way: 

• % of cases involving 2 protected characteristics = ((number of cases classified as involving 2 protected characteristics* x (1 - 33.3%)) + (number of cases classified as involving 3 or more protected characteristics* x 24.1% )) / total number of cases*
• 80% confidence upper bound = ((number of cases classified as involving 2 protected characteristics* x (1 - 25.8%)) + (number of cases classified as involving 3 or more protected characteristics* x 32.3% )) / total number of cases*

*Out of the 4,311, the 88 cases in UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Unreported Judgements were excluded from these numbers as the manual verification described above found them to have a significantly higher number of false positives as they commonly reference discrimination claimants face in other countries that is not the grounds of the claim. 

Note that the prevalence of false negatives in the sample is challenging to quantify as claimants who have experienced discrimination on the basis of multiple protected characteristics may, for strategic reasons or otherwise, only discuss one protected characteristic at court. It is therefore not unlikely that the estimation for prevalence of discrimination on the basis of multiple protected characteristics is an underestimate. 

Note also that this methodology provides an estimate of cases which feature more than one protected characteristic, but that not all of these will be instances of combined discrimination. To estimate the likely proportion of combined discrimination, the research team carried out manual assessment of 70 cases from the legal database BAILII, randomly selected from the 914 classified as involving multiple protected characteristics. Researchers assessed 20% of those to be instances of combined discrimination, a further 57.1% as uncertain due to insufficient information, and 22.9% to not be instances of combined discrimination. 

2. Socio-legal case study definition

In this research, we are defining a case study as:

• a reported experience of discrimination
• captured in informal complaints, queries or a formal legal claim (whether live, resolved, or dismissed)
• on the basis of more than one protected characteristic – claim based on multiple grounds, or experience mentions more than one protected characteristic

Involving as many of the following features as possible:

• protected characteristics 
• type of discrimination
• type of organisation involved
• sector
• timeline of events
• geography
• additional context or factors
• outcome

3. Case study list

3.1 Formal case studies

#	Case Numbers	Neutral citations	Protected characteristics	Sector
F1	1401211/2023	[2024] EAT 34	Disability, sex	Employment
F2	EA-2021-000679-LA	[2023] EAT 87, [2024] EWCA Civ 770	Race, religion	Employment
F3	AC-2023-LON-001570	[2024] EWHC 843 (Admin)	Race, religion	Education
F4	CA-2021-001741	[2022] EWHC 3209 (Admin), [2022] EWCA Civ 1391	Age, disability, race	Housing
F5	2303642/2018	[2023] EAT 16	Disability, race	Employment
F6	EA-2021-000682-BA; 2300001/2019 V; 2300528/2019 V	[2023] EAT 150	Age, race, religion	Employment
F7	EA-2021-001181-NLD	[2024] EAT 6	Race, sex, pregnancy	Employment
F8	14279/20	[2022] NIit 14279_20it	Race, disability	Employment
F9	1301189/2021	[2025] UKET 1301189/2021	Race, disability, sex	Employment
F10	2410876/2023; 2400715/2024	[2024] UKET 2410876/2023	Disability, race, religion, sex	Employment
F11	EA-2021-000083-DA; 3301633-2020/V	[2023] EAT 19	Disability, sex, age	Employment
F12	1802028/2023	[2024] UKET 1802028/2023	Religion, sex, race	Employment
F13	3200537/2022	[2023] UKET 3200537/2022	Race, age, sex	Employment
F14	CO/3726/2022	[2023] EWHC 1722 (Admin); [2025] EWCA Civ 200	Race, disability	Education
F15	AC-2022-LON-002669, CO/3726/2022	[2025] EWHC 306 (Admin)	Race, disability	Education
F16	AC-2023-LON-003447; AC-2024-LON-000210; AC-2024-LON-000224; AC-2024-LON-000189	[2025] EWHC 596 (Admin)	Race, disability	Public functions (immigration or housing)
F17	CA-2022-000248	[2022] EWCA Civ 1593	Age, disability	Public functions or education
F18	GLW-SD33-22	[2025] SCGLA 002	Disability, sex, race	Housing
F19	EA-2020-000381-OO	[2022] EAT 172	Race, religion	Employment
F20	4100336/2022	[2022] UKET 4100336/2022	Sex, sexual orientation	Employment
F21	EA-2023-000087-JOJ	[2024] EAT 115	Age, disability, sex	Employment
F22	-		Race, sex	Employment
F23	EA-2021-000848-AS	[2024] EAT 18	Race, sex, disability	Employment
F24	EA-2022-000948-RN	[2024] EAT 40	Age, disability, sex	Employment
F25	EA‑2020‑000365‑JOJ	[2022] EAT 149	Race,sex	Employment
F26	EA-2021-001227-NT	[2024] EAT 60	Age,race	Employment
F27	EA-2022-000539-NU	[2024] EAT 113	Race, sex	Employment
F28	EA-2020-000070-DA	[2021] UKEAT 2021-000256	Sex, disability, age	Employment
F29	EA-2020-000767-BA	[2023] EAT 52	Disability, sex, age	Employment
F30	2601913/2020	[2023] UKET 2601913/2020	Disability, sex, age	Employment
F31	1802637/2022	[2023] UKET 1802637/2022	Race, religion	Employment
F32	UA-2023-000387-HS	[2024] UKUT 29 (AAC)	Disability, sex	Education
F33	UKEAT/0075/11/SM	[2011] UKEAT 75_11_1509	Sex, race	Employment
F34	A2/2014/0484	[2015] EWCA Civ 1264	Race, religion	Employment
F35	[2024] EWCA Civ 191	[2024] EWCA Civ 191	Disability, age	Employment
F36	EA-2020-001085-VP	[2022] EAT 57	Sex	Employment
F37	CO/0984/2022	[2023] EWHC 2088 (Admin)	Gender reassignment, disability, age	Education
F38	3434/20	[2022] NIit 03434_20it	Sex, race, sexual orientation, disability	Employment
F39	22/42815	[2023] NICA 50	Disability, race, religion and political belief (NI specific)	Employment
F40	CO/606/2022 and CO/609/2022	[2022] EWHC 2007 (Admin)	Sex, race, disability	Public functions
F41	Anonymous	Anonymous	Age, sex	Employment

3.2 Informal case studies

#	Source	Web link	Protected characteristic	Sector
IF1	Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman	https://decisions.ombudsman.org.uk/decision?id=ab6a489f-1763-ec11-8f8f-000d3ad559bd&type=Search%20results	Gender reassignment, sex	Public services
IF2	Housing Ombudsman	https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions/welwyn-hatfield-borough-council-202120726/	Disability, race, religion and belief	Housing
IF3	Housing Ombudsman	https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions/haringey-london-borough-council-202120299/	Disability, race	Housing
IF4	Mumsnet (posted on 27 November 2023)	https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/legal_matters/4951455-anyone-who-has-a-negative-experience-with-nyas-guardians-national-youth-advisory-service-particularly-minorities-or-those-under-abuse	Race, religion, disability	Public services
IF5	Reddit (posted on 17 July 2024)	https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1e5h9s8/rant_got_fired_this_week_and_im_pretty_sure_its/	Gender reassignment, sex	Employment
IF6	EASS	Anonymised	Race, disability	Association
IF7	EASS	Anonymised	Race, disability	Employment
IF8	EASS	Anonymised	Race, disability	Housing or public functions
IF9	EASS	Anonymised	Disability, Age	Education
IF10	EASS	Anonymised	Disability, Age	Public functions
IF11	EASS	Anonymised	Sex, disability	Public functions
IF12	EASS	Anonymised	Sex, disability	Employment
IF13	EASS	Anonymised	Race, sex	Employment
IF14	EASS	Anonymised	Race, sex	Employment
IF15	The Student Room	https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3876981	Race, religion	Education or public functions
IF16	Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman	https://decisions.ombudsman.org.uk/decision?id=ae3f8a60-28ce-ed11-a7c6-0022483efed3&type=Search%20results	Race, disability	Public functions and services
IF17	Housing Ombudsman	https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions/orbit-group-limited-202226862/	Disability, sexual Orientation	Housing
IF19	Coram	Anonymised	Race, sex	Education
IF20	Coram	Anonymised	Race, sex, disability	Education

4. Forum analysis of prevalence by particular combinations of protected characteristics

Protected characteristics	Estimated percentage of cases* from BAILLI	Estimated percentage of cases* from forum analysis	Estimated percentage of EASS calls in Q4 2024*
Disability, race	16%	10%	28%
Race, sex	13%	5%	12%
Disability, sex	10%	19%	12%
Age, disability	9%	14%	13%
Race, religion	7%	10%	8%
Disability, race, and sex	6%	0%	0%
Age, race	6%	0%	4%
Age, sex	5%	0%	2%
Age, race, and sex	3%	0%	0%
Other	24.6%	43%	25%

*percentage of cases = the percentage of cases involving 2 or more protected characteristics which involve both of the specified protected characteristics.

5. Detailed methodology

5.1 Scope

This research included interviews with 3 categories of stakeholders:

1. Individuals with lived experience of combined discrimination

2. Employers or service providers who have responded to discrimination claims

3. Individuals who support those who have experienced discrimination, including lawyers, conciliators, and helpline advisors

5.2 Sampling approach

This research set out a target sample which ensured representation of interviewees across protected characteristics. It also ensured representation across sectors and individuals who have and have not pursued formal claims.

5.3 Recruitment

Participants to the research were recruited through:

• working with partner organisations, to identify suitable individuals and to send out communications through their networks, for individuals to self-refer

• “snow-balling” of recruitment, which involves asking every individual involved in the research to pass on communications to their networks (whether professional, or friends and family), to reach as wide a range of individuals as possible

See below for a list of the organisations who have supported this research.^{[footnote 1]}

• Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service)
• Advonet
• Association of University Legal Practitioners
• Chartered Management Institute
• Citizens Advice
• Discrimination Law Association
• Disability Law Service
• Employment Advice Legal Network
• Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
• Employment Lawyer association
• Equality Advisory and Support Services
• Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Fawcett
• FLEX (Focus on Labour Exploitation)
• Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
• GMB Union
• Law Centres
• Leigh Day
• NHS Resolution
• Race Equality Foundation
• Sandwell African Caribbean Mental Health Foundation
• Southwark Carers
• Unison Union
• Welcome in Hospitality, Travel and, Leisure
• West of England Centre for Inclusive Living
• Work Rights Centre

5.4 Interviews

All potential interviewees were invited to complete a brief questionnaire to understand their eligibility for the research, summarising their experiences. They were asked for their accessibility requirements and invited to a 1 hour structured interview with a researcher. Interviews lasted 60 minutes, and were transcribed. Transcripts were analysed phenomenologically and thematically. 

Eligibility for the research was considered differently for the 3 categories of participants to the research. For the first, potential interviewees who indicated that they had experienced discrimination on the basis of more than one protected characteristic were considered eligible to take part in the interviews. After interviews, researchers then made a judgement about whether the experience described by the interviewee could be considered combined discrimination (as opposed to clearly sequential discrimination, for example). Researchers took an inclusive approach, including all interviews in which interviewees felt an intersection of their protected characteristics had played a role in their experience. 

For the second and third categories, eligibility was assessed based on the participant’s employer and role. This research was conducted in parallel with research into pay discrimination. Employers and service providers’ experiences of having a pay claim or a combined discrimination claim would be fairly similar, so both types of claims were discussed in the same interview. Likewise, individuals who support those who have experienced discrimination were asked about both types of claims. 

To ensure appropriate data protection, transcripts were anonymised to prevent any direct or indirect identification, and no personal identifiable information was shared outside the immediate research team. All identifiable information on research participants will be deleted after the end of the research project. Interviewees were asked to sign consent forms to take part in the research. 

6. Summaries of lived experience interviews 

6.1 People with lived experience of combined discrimination

Interview 008

While working for a disability-focused charity and later a pub manager (organisations in the charity sector and hospitality with 50 or fewer employees), a non-British gay man with a mixed ethnic background experienced discrimination within employment. He felt he experienced combined discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and nationality. In his charity role, conversations about race were frequently dismissed or deflected, despite the organisation’s equality focus. At the pub, he was subjected to racist and homophobic abuse by customers, with minimal support from his employer. Although he considered legal options, he did not pursue legal action.

Interview 014

While working as an engineer in a large defence engineering company (250 or more employees), an autistic woman experienced what she felt was sustained combined discrimination based on sex and disability, including being disciplined for behaviours tolerated in male colleagues and treated differently to neurodivergent men. After raising concerns about unconscious bias and health and safety, she faced a prolonged internal grievance process and was subjected to what she described as a “witch hunt”, with multiple disciplinary actions brought against her. Despite her union involvement, she accepted a settlement agreement so did not pursue any further legal action.

Interview 016

While working in administrative and project roles in the charity and higher education sectors, a European migrant woman described experiencing combined discrimination based on race, sex and nationality, particularly in one charity role where she was bullied by a colleague and then penalised for raising concerns. Despite reporting inappropriate behaviour, she felt she was blamed, had her probation extended, and saw the perpetrator promoted. She attempted to seek support from a union, but as a non-member and low-paid worker, she felt the fees were unaffordable. She did not pursue legal action, citing a lack of evidence and awareness of her rights, and instead left the role to seek better opportunities.

Interview 024

While using retail and hospitality services, a young disabled woman felt she experienced discrimination in goods and services. She uses a wheelchair part-time and feels that she faces frequent discrimination in public spaces, particularly when her disability is not immediately visible. She reported encountering difficulties such as being denied access to disabled toilets and being interrogated by delivery staff about her condition. She believes her experience reflects combined discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and sex, feeling often infantilised or disbelieved due to appearing young. She has taken proactive steps by contacting supermarkets and a restaurant chain. While one responded supportively, another gave what she felt was only a generic apology. She attempted to seek legal support but found free legal advice services unresponsive, which deterred further action.

Interview 025

While working as a clinical professional in healthcare (250 or more employees), a Muslim woman from a Pakistani ethnic background with a disability experienced what she felt was discrimination. As a newly qualified practitioner, she described sustained bullying and exclusion from induction processes, alongside deliberate undermining of her performance. The discrimination she experienced related to race, disability, sex, and potentially religion, with her competency records being erased and unjust disciplinary actions started. She raised complaints internally, sought union support, and eventually escalated to a chief executive, though they resigned before the issue was resolved. With support from family and faith, she took stress-related leave and secured a new job in the private sector. She did not pursue legal action, citing systemic barriers and lack of trust in internal procedures.

Interview 029

While working in the charity sector, where she was also a trade union representative, a young European migrant woman experienced discrimination in employment. She felt she had experienced combined discrimination across multiple workplaces on the basis of race, gender, and age, including harassment and indirect discrimination. She felt she was patronised, side-lined, and treated dismissively compared to other colleagues. The cumulative effect of being perceived as both “pliable” and “less threatening” affected her confidence and sense of belonging. While she did not take formal legal action, she has since left the organisation and remains reflective about how systemic and individual biases intersect and replicate across workplaces.

Interview 033

While working on a student support programme funded by a university (higher education, 250 or more employees), a young woman from a rural background felt that experienced discrimination within employment. As the first in her family to attend university, she was placed on a zero-hours contract while performing the same role as a male colleague on a salaried contract. She only discovered this after a year. She saw this as sex and age discrimination, combined with assumptions about her experience and naivety. At the time, she lacked the knowledge or resources to challenge it and felt grateful simply to have the job during the COVID period. With the support of a charity focused on supporting young women, she later confronted her manager and demanded a contract. She did not pursue legal action.

Interview 040

While working in the hospitality sector for a large national company (250 or more employees), progressing from glass collector to managerial and training roles, a woman felt that she experienced discrimination on the basis of sex and maternity. Her experience of discrimination occurred when she experienced being overlooked for a role after returning from maternity leave. Despite strong performance, she was told she was unsuccessful because she had “been out of the business for 12 months” and was “too nice” – comments she linked to sex and maternity discrimination. She had previously been denied a role in a sports bar because it “needed a man”. She raised concerns with HR and was encouraged by colleagues and managers to pursue a complaint. She identified her case as involving dual discrimination based on sex and maternity, and ultimately took formal action with union support.

Interview 041

While working in local government, where she worked in housing services (250 or more employees), a disabled woman in her late 50s discovered a younger male colleague was being paid more for what she felt were similar responsibilities. She believed this reflected combined age, sex, and disability discrimination. After internal HR routes failed, she contacted Acas and explored early conciliation. She later took limited legal advice, which confirmed the case was unlikely to succeed under equal pay law due to contractual differences.

Interview 043

While working as a team leader in a mental health charity (between 50 and 250 employees), a British Muslim woman from an Asian ethnic background experienced what she felt was combined discrimination based on her race, religion, and sex. She was overlooked for promotion in favour of White colleagues whom she had trained, and was subsequently managed by less experienced former subordinates. She faced what she describes as bullying, intimidation, and a failure by management to address Islamophobic abuse from service users, which she believed created a hostile work environment. She raised an internal complaint and union involvement, and took them to an employment tribunal for discrimination on the basis of race, religion and disability. The employer suggested a settlement of 1 month’s pay. She did not agree and proceeded towards taking a claim to the tribunal but then pulled out due to cost. She then got an offer of 3 months pay and subsequently 6 months. She decided to not accept the offers and remained in employment at the charity.

Interview 045

While working in the  public housing sector (250 or more employees), a Black disabled woman experienced what she felt was combined discrimination based on sex, race, and disability. She reported repeated bullying, derogatory remarks, and humiliating comments from senior managers, including inappropriate jokes and comments about her sexuality and physical health. Despite raising formal grievances, HR failed to act, and she felt increasingly targeted after speaking out. This ongoing treatment triggered a serious stress-related health condition, and her concerns were eventually dismissed with a financial settlement offer, which she rejected. She filed a tribunal claim with support from Acas and a solicitor. She is now pursuing legal action and hopes not only for compensation but for systemic change, including independent oversight of HR processes and improved accountability in public sector organisations.

Interview 050

While working in finance at a multinational company for 15 years (250 or more employees), an older woman experienced what she felt was combined discrimination. Initially happy in her role, she describes experiencing discrimination during a restructure that led to her being demoted and reporting to a new team in France without consultation. She was one of 3 older women from a team of 16 who she felt were pushed out or marginalised. She raised grievances internally and began a tribunal claim with Acas, though she later considered withdrawing due to emotional strain. She believes she was discriminated against based on gender and age, particularly given the pattern of treatment toward older women. This included the exclusion from opportunities like French lessons offered only to men, and discrepancies in bonus eligibility. The company later acknowledged some process failings, but did not recognise that discrimination had taken place.

Interview 055

While working as a senior manager at a growing medical education social enterprise (between 50 and 250 employees, voluntary sector), a White woman with a hearing impairment experienced what she felt was combined discrimination. As the first non-clinician in a leadership role, she describes facing sustained bullying, racism, sexism, and ableist comments from the CEO, including public humiliation over her hearing impairment and offensive remarks about her race and disability. Despite raising concerns formally, having authored the organisation’s HR policies herself, she felt that her complaints were ignored. She was dismissed without investigation after confronting the CEO, and felt that she was emotionally blackmailed not to pursue a tribunal. She later contributed evidence that led to the CEO’s removal and professional sanctions. She identified her experience as involving intersecting discrimination across sex, race, and disability.

Interview 059

While working as a qualified accountant within a large public body in Northern Ireland (250 or more employees), a Catholic woman with a disability experienced what she describes as combined discrimination (direct, indirect discrimination and bullying) based on sex, religion, and disability, including being underpaid for years compared to less qualified colleagues, denied promotion, and subjected to verbal threats and isolation. She describes being told not to challenge pay discrepancies or risk losing her job and was later downgraded during a job evaluation process while colleagues were upgraded without interviews. Requests for reasonable adjustments linked to her hip dysplasia and long COVID were repeatedly denied. Although she raised issues internally and through her union, she did not pursue a tribunal claim due to fear of dismissal, legal costs, and lack of support.

Interview 069

While working as a team leader supporting people in crisis for a mental health charity, a Muslim woman from an Asian ethnic background experienced what she felt was combined discrimination based on race, religion, and sex. After closing a service early, she was immediately suspended and ultimately dismissed, while a White colleague who had committed a similar infraction was not. She reported being disproportionately penalised and subjected to a drawn-out disciplinary process, which affected her mental and physical health. She described how her grievances were largely dismissed. Evidence critical to her case, including 10 years of emails, was deleted by her employer. She is now pursuing a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal, supported by her union. She believes her treatment was caused by a combination of visible Muslim identity through her headscarf, Asian ethnicity, and being an outspoken woman. She calls for greater fairness, transparency, and accountability in how such cases are handled.

Interview 079

While working in the charity sector as a fundraising manager, and in previous roles related to communications and media, a deaf woman and working mother described experiencing combined discrimination based on disability, sex, and pregnancy or maternity. In one role, she described being verbally abused by a colleague for mispronouncing a word during a presentation and later pushed out of her job after returning from maternity leave. She felt that management used her deafness and new parental status as justifications to withhold significant parts of her role. In another case, she felt pressured to attend a redeployment interview the day after a medical procedure, under threat of exclusion from redeployment. Although she contacted Acas for advice, accessibility barriers (such as lack of prompt email or phone support for deaf users) hindered her ability to seek help independently. She did not pursue formal action, citing the lack of evidence and fear of retaliation, but now works in a more supportive organisation and has advocated internally for inclusive recruitment practices.

Interview 090

While working as a project lead in the public sector (250 or more employees), a young woman with endometriosis experienced what she described as combined discrimination based on disability, sex, and age, including delayed access to occupational health, refusal of reasonable adjustments, and being assigned physically demanding tasks that worsened her health. Despite strong performance, she felt that she was undermined by colleagues and targeted by managers who ignored medical advice and created a hostile work environment. She felt she was underpaid, denied holiday pay after team changes, and made to feel like a troublemaker for seeking support. She raised formal grievances, some alongside colleagues, and is now pursuing a tribunal claim related to pay and discrimination, supported by her union. She believes the public sector lacks accountability and called for systemic change in management culture to better support disabled and minoritised staff.

6.2 Employers and service providers

Interview 049

HR manager at a non-profit social housing provider that had recently merged with another Housing Association (250 or more employees). Direct experience dealing with discrimination claims as a respondent and navigating employment tribunal (around 3 to 4 ongoing cases).

Interview 052

National officer for trade union covering a public service, who has recently been the respondent in an employment (between 50 and 250 employees) claim made against the Union. This included a claim made against him personally, which has been withdrawn.

Included in the respondent sample rather than the support organisations because the interview was largely centred around his experience as an employer, noting he also provided a number of insights on the claimant side.

Interview 057

Was a senior manager at a commercial training provider (professional services, between 50 and 250 employees), providing HR support in their organisations’ grievance investigation into alleged disability discrimination. Direct involvement in internal grievance process and investigations, with no reference to navigating the tribunal service.

Interview 067

Former HR director and now HR consultant with a career spanning several small to medium-sized enterprises (between 50 and 250 employees) in the construction, retail, and non-profit sectors. Previous experience in responding to claims at tribunal.

Interview 073

Senior project manager at a regional branch for a large construction company (250 or more employees), which relies on contractors for delivery of a significant proportion of business. No direct involvement in employment tribunals.

Interview 084

Employment lawyer working in private practice in Scotland. With experience representing both claimants and respondents, with the majority of her work sitting on the respondent side. Currently involved in equal pay litigation for a large retailer.

Included in the employer sample, the interview largely focused on experiences of respondents and the specific details on the case she is working on in retail.

Interview 086

Lawyers, including a senior partner at a private employment law firm with decades of experience supporting public sector employers (250 or more employers), an academic lawyer and a lawyer who provides in-house legal counsel for large organisations in media and broadcasting (250 or more employees). Direct involvement in previous employment tribunal cases. 

Included in the sample for employers as most attendees had worked in house and most of the interview was focused on experiences of employers.

Interview 094

Now working as a HR consultant, but had previously worked in HR for a large technology firm (250 or more employees), spanning both operational and strategic HR. Had been involved in company grievances but had not gone to a tribunal as a respondent.

Interview 095

2 senior HR professionals at a UK-based large financial services organisation (250 or more employees). Both involved in the organisation’s response to ongoing cases in the employment tribunal.

Interview 096

Senior in-house solicitor at a UK based university, with global presence (organisation with 250 or more employees in higher education sector), serving around 2,000 students. The interviewee’s specific role is to oversee legal and compliance matters, including employment and student-related cases. This includes the university’s response to discrimination claims, especially those that escalate beyond initial internal processes.

Interview 097

In-house solicitor at a large university (250 or more employees) in the higher education sector, serving around 30,000 students. They have worked in this role for over 3 years, following earlier experience in private legal practice. Their role includes supporting HR with complex grievances, particularly those that reach the employment tribunal (ET) stage. They regularly manage discrimination cases, particularly those involving race, disability, and age, many of which reference more than one protected characteristic.

Interview 101

Personnel manager working within the public sector (250 or more employees). Responsible for dealing for staff within a specific region. No direct involvement in employment tribunals.

Interview 103

Independent HR consultant with a background as an in-house HR generalist. They have worked across a variety of organisations including publishing, private medical, technology startups, and professional services, typically within the private sector. The size of the organisations they have worked with ranges from small startups to medium-sized scale-ups (up to 250 employees). In their consultancy role, they focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policy development, pay transparency, and employee experience. They support clients through grievances, policy reviews, and pay audits, and have dealt with multiple formal complaints involving pay discrimination, often involving intersectional issues across gender, race, age, and disability.

Interview 104

Sole in-house legal counsel at a UK university in the higher education sector (250 or more employees), serving around 9,000 students. The interviewee manages all legal matters, including student complaints and discrimination claims. In this role, they act as a significant point of escalation and triage, particularly for complex or legally sensitive cases.

Interview 105

Works at a small employment agency and labour provider (50 or fewer employees). The organisation serves clients across multiple industries, including hospitality, manufacturing, and public sector organisations, placing both permanent and temporary workers, acting as the legal employer for agency staff and supporting placements into client organisations. In terms of legal processes, the organisation has not had a case proceed to tribunal but has been named alongside clients in early-stage claims. The company typically resolves complaints through informal means, including discussion with candidates and clients, documentation reviews, and meetings.

Interview 106

Has previously held senior HR roles in startups and scaleups within the technology sector with her last role being in a large organisation with 250 or more employees. In both organisations, they were the most senior HR professional, responsible for overseeing compensation and recruitment. Their involvement with the legal process primarily related to managing internal grievances and claims if they did arise, including a notable case raised by a payroll manager that evolved into an equal pay dispute. Though they viewed the claim as opportunistic, the business opted to settle due to limited HR capacity and legal resources.

6.3 Support organisations

Interview 003

Leaders from within an independent body that provides free and confidential services to help resolve workplace disputes and provides support to individuals navigating Employment Tribunals at different stages of the journey.

Interview 004

Knowledge manager at a helpline that supports individuals experiencing discrimination by providing non-legal advice to help people understand their rights, previously working as a helpline adviser. As part of their current role, they have an overview of the calls coming into the helpline including types of cases being seen.

Interview 006

Solicitor working at a community legal centre, providing support and second-tier advice across a number of areas including employment, education and housing (partially funded by the local authority). The legal centre does not offer individual casework but assists with legal awareness and informal advocacy, including working with community organisations.

Interview 007

Employment solicitor working in a legal charity offering free legal advice and representation. With decades of experience, including significant time on the respondent side, they now support claimants, particularly those with disabilities or insecure immigration status. They support at all stages in an individual’s journey from early advice to tribunal representation.

Interview 010

Chief executive of a combined Citizens Advice and Law Centre, and a discrimination lawyer with a focus on welfare benefits. Their organisation provides holistic legal support, including employment and discrimination law, primarily for disabled individuals, often providing initial support in the early stages of an individual’s journey.

Interview 015

Works in policy and advocacy for a frontline charity providing support and advice around employment to migrant workers. The organisation offers legal consultations, casework, and tribunal representation, supporting clients facing a range of issues including wage theft, unfair dismissal, and discrimination based on race, sex, or pregnancy.

Interview 017

Interview with 2 individual conciliators who work at an independent body, engaging with individuals at the point of early conciliation. They typically engage with individuals and employers once early conciliation has been triggered, though occasionally even earlier through informal channels. Their role involves providing impartial information about legal processes, rights under the Equality Act, and potential options for resolution.

Interview 022

Former national women’s officer for a major trade union and previously led employment relations at a professional nursing body. Her work has spanned both negotiation and casework, particularly around equal pay in healthcare. Within the union, she has supported individuals through grievance and legal processes and worked with solicitors to pursue strategic discrimination claims – especially involving maternity, disability, and race.

Interview 035

Working as an individual conciliator at an independent body, engaging with individuals at the point of early conciliation. This takes the form of working to resolve legal disputes and reach legally binding settlements between employees and employers before cases go to employment tribunal, where possible.

Interview 051

Interview with 3 helpline advisors for an independent body who provide frontline, impartial advice to callers about workplace concerns. They are often the first point of contact for individuals uncertain whether their experiences amount to unlawful discrimination. Their support includes explaining the law, outlining grievance processes, and signposting to further resources, such as the Equality Advisory and Support Service. While they do not offer legal advice, they help callers understand their options and manage expectations.

Interview 087

Interviewee had previously held a role at a charity supporting women victim of sexual harassment in the workplace. The charity provides advice throughout an individual’s journey, helping women understand their rights and to navigate the process.

Interview 091

Interview with 3 lawyers with experience on both the claimant and respondent sides. While not providing direct support to individuals, their contributions inform policy debates and legal reform, representing both strategic litigation and the day-to-day realities of employment law.

Interview 093

Interviewee holds a dual role as the director of a network supporting employment law advice providers and as a caseworker for a charity offering free representation at tribunals. Through both roles, they support low-income individuals in navigating discrimination claims, providing advocacy and case preparation once a hearing is scheduled. They typically handle less complex cases due to the volunteer-led model.

Interview 099

Solicitor working at a community legal centre whose work spans across employment and education, focusing the interview on the employment element of their work. Provides legal awareness and informal advocacy, including for experiences with secondary schools and exclusions.

7. Definitions and glossary

Discrimination: Discrimination means treating someone ‘less favourably’ than someone else, because of one of their protected characteristics. Less favourable treatment can be anything that puts someone with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage, compared to someone who does not have that characteristic.

Multiple discrimination: Discrimination which occurs based on more than one protected characteristic. When this occurs on 2 protected characteristics, this is sometimes called dual discrimination.

Combined discrimination: Discrimination which occurs based on a combination of protected characteristics that interact with each other in a way that produces distinct and specific discrimination.

Additive multiple discrimination: Discrimination which occurs on multiple grounds at the same occasion, but each of the grounds can be identified independently.

Sequential multiple discrimination: Discrimination which occurs on multiple grounds on separate, successive occasions.

Direct discrimination: Direct discrimination is when someone is put at a disadvantage or treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination: Indirect discrimination is when a working practice, policy or rule is the same for everyone but has a worse effect on someone because of a protected characteristic.

Harassment: Harassment is unwanted behaviour related to a protected characteristic, which violated the person’s dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

Victimisation: Victimisation is when someone is treated less favourably as a result of being involved with a discrimination or harassment complaint. Ways someone could be victimised include being labelled a troublemaker, being left out or not being allowed to do something.

Associative discrimination: Associative discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably because of the protected characteristics of someone that they are associated with.

Protected characteristic: There are 9 protected characteristics. These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Association: An association, in the context of the Equality Act 2010, is any group that has at least 25 members and regulates admissions using rules and a selection process. The rules do not have to be written down and it does not matter if the association is run for profit, or if it is legally incorporated or not.

Lived experience: The knowledge and understanding that comes from personally experiencing something, including the emotions, perceptions, and goals that shape a person’s inner world

Barriers to redress: Anything which prevents individuals or organisations from remedying discrimination. This could include, but is not limited to, fear of retaliation, lack of trust, complex reporting processes, lack of understanding, or burden of proof.

Claimant: An individual who makes a claim to a tribunal is a claimant.

Respondent: In the context of a claim brought to a tribunal, the respondent is the party who is being sued or who will respond to the claim brought by the claimant.

Individual, interviewee, or person with lived experience: In this report, ‘individual’, ‘interviewee’, or ‘person with lived experience’ refers to any of the people who have participated in the lived experience research, across any of the 3 types of interviews: (1) people who have experienced combined discrimination, (2) employers and service providers, and (3) support organisations. However, ‘person with lived experience of combined discrimination’ refers to individuals in the first category of research participants only.

ET1 form: An ET1 form is used by employees or workers to make a claim to an employment tribunal when they think they have been treated unfairly by their employer, potential employer or trade union.

ET3 form: An ET3 form is used by employers to respond to a claim of unlawful treatment made by an employee to an employment tribunal.

Section 23: Section 23 of the 2010 Equality Act, which covers comparison of circumstances.

Public Sector Equality Duty: The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which applies in Great Britain, requires public authorities to have due regard to certain equality considerations when exercising their functions, like making decisions.

1. Support did not always lead to recruitment of individuals for the research ↩