The UK High Court recently held segregation in a religious school on the ground of sex did not constitute discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. While the Court noted that such an approach might deny pupils the opportunity to interact, socialise and learn with or from the opposite sex – it was non-discriminatory and there was no evidence that one sex was being treated less favourably than the other.
By way of background, the school is a voluntary aided faith school for boys and girls aged 9-16. The school adheres to an Islamic ethos whereby from the age of 9 boys and girls are educated separately. In 2014 the school went into special measures and an interim executive board was appointed. That board was designated as the ‘responsible body for the purposes of anti-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act. The school had experienced a good working relationship with Ofsted in the past however in June 2016 a report was issued against the school whereby the school was found to be inadequate in three respects; namely (1) effectiveness of leadership and management, (2) personal development, behaviour and welfare, and (3) early years provision. The executive board on behalf of the school sought declaratory reliefs from the Court and specifically that the inspector’s approach to the Equality Act was wrong in law.
The High Court held that there was no discrimination as the students were taught separate but equal. The Equality Act 2010, which combines 116 separate pieces of equality legislation, provides a legal framework that protects individuals from unfair treatment such as discrimination. Discrimination occurs when a person experiences less favourable treatment based off of grounds listed in equality legislation such as sexual orientation, race, religion, age, etc. In order for there to be grounds for gender discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, you must show that Person A is treated ‘less favourably’ to Person B solely due to gender. The Court determined that since all children in the school were denied the opportunity of interacting with the opposite sex, there was no one person or group being treated less favourably than the other and therefore did not constitute as grounds for discrimination.
Click here for full judgement