Geneviv Boohene & Ors v The Royal Parks Ltd

Geneviv Boohene & Ors v The Royal Parks Ltd

The claim failed because the alleged discrimination related to the terms of the Claimants' contracts with their employer (Vinci), not to any term or requirement imposed by the Royal Parks as principal. Section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 does not provide a remedy against the principal for detriments arising from the worker's contract with the supplier, even if the principal influenced those terms. The correct comparison pool was all directly and indirectly employed staff, but the Claimants failed to adduce evidence of disparate impact in that pool. The principal did not 'apply' any PCP to the Claimants within the meaning of section 19.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: Geneviv Boohene and others; Respondent: The Royal Parks Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (employment Discrimination) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; EAT decision upheld; claim fails.
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Contract Workers, Section 41 Equality Act 2010, Section 19 Equality Act 2010, London Living Wage, Comparative Pools in Discrimination, Pleading and Evidence in Discrimination Claims
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Law Indirect Discrimination Contract Workers Section 41 Equality Act 2010 Section 19 Equality Act 2010 London Living Wage Comparative Pools in Discrimination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geneviv Boohene and others

Claimants/appellants

The Royal Parks Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (employment Discrimination) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a principal's failure to require contractors to pay the London Living Wage to contract workers constitute indirect racial discrimination under section 41 of the Equality Act 2010?
  2. 2 What is the correct comparison pool for assessing disparate impact in indirect discrimination claims involving contract workers?
  3. 3 Does the principal 'apply' a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) to contract workers within the meaning of section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 when it does not require contractors to pay the LLW?

Ratio Decidendi

The claim failed because the alleged discrimination related to the terms of the Claimants' contracts with their employer (Vinci), not to any term or requirement imposed by the Royal Parks as principal. Section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 does not provide a remedy against the principal for detriments arising from the worker's contract with the supplier, even if the principal influenced those terms. The correct comparison pool was all directly and indirectly employed staff, but the Claimants failed to adduce evidence of disparate impact in that pool. The principal did not 'apply' any PCP to the Claimants within the meaning of section 19.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; EAT decision upheld; claim fails.

Orders

  • No remittal to the Employment Tribunal; claim dismissed for lack of evidence of disparate impact in the correct pool.