Direct discrimination

The most recognisable form of workplace discrimination — treated worse because of who you are. Deceptively simple to state, and won or lost on comparators, inferences and evidence.

What counts as direct discrimination at work?

Being treated less favourably than someone else was, or would have been, treated because of a protected characteristic — age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Refusing someone promotion because she is pregnant is the classic example.

Who do I compare myself with?

A comparator: someone in materially the same circumstances who does not share your protected characteristic. The comparator can be a real colleague or a hypothetical person — the tribunal asks how such a person would have been treated. What you cannot do is compare yourself with someone whose situation was materially different.

Can my employer justify direct discrimination?

Almost never. Unlike indirect discrimination, direct discrimination cannot be justified — with one exception: direct age discrimination can be lawful if the employer shows it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Outside age, motive and good intentions are irrelevant.

Does the discrimination have to be deliberate?

No. The question is whether the protected characteristic materially influenced the treatment, consciously or not. Tribunals routinely find direct discrimination where the decision-maker sincerely denies prejudice but the evidence shows the characteristic shaped the decision.

What is the time limit for a direct discrimination claim?

For acts before 1 October 2026, three months less one day from the act complained of, paused while ACAS Early Conciliation runs. For acts on or after 1 October 2026, the Employment Rights Act 2025 extends the limit to six months. Continuing discrimination can count as conduct extending over a period, and tribunals can extend time where just and equitable — but treating the shortest possible deadline as yours is the safe course.

What compensation can a tribunal award?

There is no statutory cap on discrimination awards. Compensation covers financial losses and injury to feelings, the latter set using the Vento bands — for 2026/27: lower band £1,300 to £12,600, middle band £12,600 to £37,700, upper band £37,700 to £62,900, with exceptional cases above that. Interest can be added, and awards reflect severity, duration and impact.

Direct discrimination

Employment Tribunal · Glossary

Direct discrimination

The most recognisable form of workplace discrimination — treated worse because of who you are. Deceptively simple to state, and won or lost on comparators, inferences and evidence.

Last reviewed: August 2026

Employment Tribunal track

Direct discrimination

, under s.13 of the Equality Act 2010, is treating someone

than others in materially the same circumstances

because of a protected characteristic

— and the comparison can be with a real colleague or a hypothetical one.

Where this comes from

Equality Act 2010, s.13

— the definition of direct discrimination.

Equality Act 2010, s.136

— the shifting burden of proof once facts point to discrimination.

EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice

— the code tribunals take into account.

The three moving parts

Every s.13 claim reduces to three questions. First, was there

less favourable treatment

— a rejection, a demotion, a denied promotion, worse terms, dismissal, or any real disadvantage. Second, is there a

: someone in materially the same circumstances without your characteristic who was, or would have been, treated better. Third, was the treatment

— which asks what really operated on the decision-maker's mind, consciously or not.

The reach is wider than people expect. The characteristic does not have to be yours: treating someone worse because of who they are associated with — a parent caring for a disabled child, say — or because they were wrongly perceived to have a characteristic both count. And with one narrow exception, direct discrimination cannot be justified: outside age — where an employer can defend treatment as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — good intentions, commercial pressure and customer preference are all irrelevant once the causation is made out.

How a tribunal approaches it

• The claimant builds a prima facie case.
• Facts from which discrimination could be inferred: the timing, the comparator's treatment, remarks made, shifting explanations, departures from procedure.
• Under s.136, once those facts are established, the employer must prove the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of the characteristic — see
• The explanation is tested.
• Tribunals compare the employer's stated reason against the documents, the treatment of others, and what was said at the time. Inconsistency is where these cases turn.
• If the claim succeeds: financial losses, injury to feelings under the
• , interest, and recommendations. Discrimination awards are uncapped.

How it works in practice

A retail supervisor tells her manager she is pregnant in March. In April, the area role she had been told was “hers to lose” goes to a colleague with less experience; the written reason is “energy and long-term commitment”. Nothing in her appraisals supports the change.

Less favourable treatment

non-pregnant colleague promoted

Facts suggesting causation

timing + “commitment” remark

Burden shifts to employer under s.136

explanation must exclude pregnancy

She starts ACAS Early Conciliation within the time limit, which pauses the clock. Her claim sets out the timeline, the appraisal record and the pay gap between the two roles. Faced with a paper trail that contradicts its stated reason, the employer settles during conciliation for lost earnings plus a sum for injury to feelings within the lower Vento band.

Time limits: the deadline is unforgiving

For acts before 1 October 2026, a tribunal claim must be presented within

three months less one day

of the act complained of, with the clock paused during

. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, acts occurring on or after 1 October 2026 get

— but the change does not move deadlines for anything that happened earlier, so for a while both limits run in parallel. Discrimination that continues — a policy applied month after month, a sustained pattern — can amount to conduct extending over a period, with time running from its end, and tribunals have a just and equitable discretion to extend. None of that is worth relying on if you can act promptly.

• Choosing the wrong comparator.
• A comparator whose circumstances differ materially — different role, different record, different decision-maker — invites the employer to explain the difference on those grounds. Where no clean real comparator exists, a hypothetical one is not a weakness.
• Expecting a confession.
• Almost no case has direct evidence of prejudice. Tribunals decide on inference — timing, inconsistency, departures from policy — so the file you build matters more than the words anyone will admit to.
• Confusing unfairness with discrimination.
• Bad management distributed equally is not s.13. The treatment must be worse
• the characteristic; general unreasonableness belongs in other claims.
• Missing the deadline while a grievance runs.
• does not stop the tribunal clock. Run the grievance and the ACAS notification in parallel, not in sequence.
• Framing every claim as direct discrimination.
• Some facts fit better as
• , indirect discrimination or victimisation — and claims are often pleaded in the alternative. Choosing the right label early shapes the evidence you gather.

Frequently asked questions

Sources & further reading

• Equality Act 2010, s.13
• (legislation.gov.uk)
• Equality Act 2010, s.136
• EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice
• (equalityhumanrights.com)
• Discrimination: your rights
• Discrimination and the law

Treated worse and suspect you know why?

Start My Claim helps you organise the timeline, the comparators and the evidence into a case you run yourself.

Last reviewed: August 2026.

References checked against the Equality Act 2010 and the 2026/27 Vento Presidential Guidance as in force on 24 August 2026.

This page is explanatory only and is not legal advice. Start My Claim is self-service software, not a law firm — its tools help you build and run your own case.