Last week I had a podcast debate with the journalist and academic Joanna Williams on The Flip Side for the charity The Equiano Project on the Equality Act. It should be released soon and it was full of polite, informed disagreement (she was against, unsurprisingly I was for), so worth a listen.
One of Joanna’s objections to the Equality Act was her view that it reinforced identity politics.
Here I want to expand on why I think that view is fundamentally incorrect (vis a vis the wording of the Equality Act).
I accept that there is a widespread perception in public discourse that the Equality Act 2010 serves to entrench “identity politics” in our legal system (not helped by some of the discourse by the “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion industry” ).
In fact, a closer reading of both the legislation and its application in the courts reveals that the Act was designed to resist identity-based favouritism and promote universal, objective standards.
🧩 Universality at the Core
The Equality Act 2010 provides protection to everyone. Every individual, regardless of their race, sex, religion or belief, age, or other protected characteristic can rely on it when subjected to unlawful discrimination. Its core principle is not to elevate identity, but to ensure that any relevant unlawful discriminatory decision or policy is capable of legal challenge.
⚖️ Case Law: Principles Over Identity
Two cases (one recent) illustrate this clearly:
➡️ Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police (2019)
Here, a white male successfully brought a claim of indirect discrimination after the force implemented a recruitment policy favouring underrepresented groups. The Employment Tribunal found that the use of positive action had crossed the line into positive discrimination, which the Act explicitly prohibits. The decision was not about protecting his identity. It was about applying the law even-handedly and upholding the principle that all candidates deserve to be assessed on merit.
The judgment is at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c66abfd40f0b61a1e93a27a/Mr_M_Furlong_v_The_Chief_Constable_of_Cheshire_Police_2405577.18_judgment_and_reasons.pdf
➡️ Turner-Robson v Thames Valley Police (2022)
Similarly, Turner-Robson and others, three white officers, succeeded in a claim where they were overlooked for promotion in which an Asian officer was appointed without the required selection process. The tribunal held that the process failed the proportionality test required under s.159 of the Equality Act. Again, the outcome turned not on their identity, but on objective scrutiny of whether the process was justified and lawful.
🧪 Why “Reason” Matters More Than Identity
In each case, what the courts asked was not “Who is the claimant?” but “What is the reason for the treatment?” This question is the touchstone of discrimination law. Was the claimant treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic? Was the policy justified, or did it amount to unjustifiable positive discrimination?
These tests protect us all from arbitrary or preferential treatment, reinforcing the neutrality of the law. Far from fuelling identity politics, the Equality Act sets strict boundaries around when and how identity can be taken into account; and only ever in pursuit of fairness, not favouritism.
📚 Conclusion
Rather than reinforcing identity politics, the Equality Act 2010 uses legal tests and universal application to contain it. The law stands for fairness; and its enduring strength lies in treating identity as a relevant context, not a controlling factor.
Let’s move the conversation beyond headlines and remember: the law protects individuals, not ideologies.
#EqualityAct2010 #UKLaw #DiscriminationLaw #EmploymentLaw #LegalUpdate #HumanRights #EqualityNotFavouritism