EHRC ruling in Good Law Project challenge — quick read and practical steps
Summary On 13 February the court handed down its judgment in Good Law Project v Equality and Human Rights Commission (AC–LON-001953). The decision clarifies when organisations that provide public-facing services must meet equality and non‑discrimination obligations. It doesn’t create bright‑line rules, but it emphasises context, proportionality and the need for clear, contemporaneous decision‑making. Below we set out the key points, what they mean in practice and a short checklist of priority actions.
What the judgment says, in plain terms – Who is in scope: A broad range of organisations can fall within equality duties when the services they provide are “public in character.” That includes statutory bodies, contractors and other entities whose functions affect the public. – Core legal finding: Duties depend on the nature and impact of the function, not just a body’s formal title or funding source. Discrimination law applies where policies or practices have adverse effects on protected groups. – Emphasis on process: The court stressed that both substantive choices and the steps taken to reach them matter. Evidence of a structured, evidence‑based decision process is decisive.
Practical implications for organisations – Risk exposures: Failure to recognise public‑function status or to document decision‑making can lead to judicial review, regulatory enforcement and reputational harm. Remedies may include declarations, mandatory policy redesigns and other orders. – Front‑line staff: The ruling gives staff more scope to apply proportionate, tailored arrangements — but only where the rationale is recorded, evidence‑based and kept under review. – Inclusion measures: Reasonable, proportionate inclusion policies are lawful when properly implemented and explained. However, they must be justified and balanced against other legitimate aims.
What organisations should do now — priority checklist 1. Map services quickly – Identify activities that are public in character and note why each activity meets that threshold. 2. Strengthen decision records – Introduce simple templates to capture the facts, rationale, proportionality test and review triggers for sensitive decisions. 3. Update equality impact assessments – Rework EIAs to address direct and indirect discrimination and to set out mitigation steps and monitoring arrangements. 4. Review contracts and SLAs – Ensure third‑party contracts require compliance with non‑discrimination obligations where outsourced activities affect the public. 5. Train and empower front‑line teams – Provide scenario‑based training on lawful discretion, proportionality and how to record decisions. 6. Engage legal oversight – Route high‑risk cases to legal counsel and set clear escalation criteria for complex or novel issues. 7. Board reporting and governance – Put a timetable for reassessment in place, assign owners, and report progress to senior management or the board.
Practical guidance for employers – No simple bright lines: The judgment leaves proportionality and necessity context‑dependent. Employers must document the evidence and thought process behind adjustments or role requirements. – Policies and discipline: Review conduct, disciplinary and role‑requirement policies so they reflect proportionality-based decision‑making. Avoid ad hoc choices without records. – Risk assessments and data protection: Carry out focused individual risk assessments and keep contemporaneous notes. Make sure records comply with GDPR and are retained on lawful grounds. – Contractual and technical constraints: Map dependencies (third parties, legacy systems) and reallocate responsibilities where appropriate.
Front‑line best practice – Clear local policies with eligibility criteria and reasonable adjustment guidance. – Mandatory decision logs for any differentiated treatment. – Regular reviews to confirm measures remain necessary and proportionate. – Communication plans so users know available adjustments and appeals routes.
Enforcement outlook and limitations The court signalled closer scrutiny of patterns of decision‑making. Regulators and courts will look for consistency, transparency and proportionality. That said, the ruling does not resolve every tension — employers and service providers will still face judgment calls where duties collide (e.g, equality vs health and safety vs contractual obligations).
How to monitor and prepare – Run a targeted policy audit and brief the board on gaps and mitigations. – Standardise templates and consider RegTech or case‑management tools to capture evidence and audit trails. – Watch for guidance from regulators and subsequent case law that will refine the tests for proportionality and public‑function status.
Closing note This judgment supports inclusion where measures are reasonable and proportionate, but it places a premium on process and documentation. Organisations that pair principled policies with clear evidence, training and contractual clarity will be best placed to manage both legal and operational risks. For tailored advice, consult legal counsel to align actions with your facts and sector risks. We will continue to monitor developments and update guidance as further clarifications emerge.