United Kingdom / Joint appeals of Taiwo (Appellant) v. Olaigbe and another (Respondents) and Onu (Appellant) v. Akwiwu and another (Respondents) [2016] UKSC 31

Country

United Kingdom

Title

United Kingdom / Joint appeals of Taiwo (Appellant) v. Olaigbe and another (Respondents) and Onu (Appellant) v. Akwiwu and another (Respondents) [2016] UKSC 31

View full Case

Year

2016

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination
Harassment

Related Bias motivation

Nationality
Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

Migrants

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Key facts of the case

The two appellants, Ms Taiwo and Ms Omu, are both Nigerian nationals who came to work in the UK on domestic work visas. They were both forced to work excessive hours and severely mistreated by their employers, including being starved and physically and mentally abused. Both appellants claimed to have been discriminated against owing to their immigration status.

Main reasoning/argumentation

Under the Equality Act 2010, race as a protected characteristic includes nationality. The appellants argued that their claim fell within the remit of the Equality Act as immigration status is a function of nationality and that immigration status and nationality are unable to be dissociated. They further argued that in other contexts, such as the definition of “racial group” for the purposes of racially aggravated offences, a more flexible approach to the concept of nationality had been taken.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

Whether discrimination on the basis of immigration status amounts to discrimination on grounds of race, which includes nationality, under the Equality Act 2010.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The appeals were dismissed and the Supreme Court held that neither appellant suffered race discrimination. The Court held that the reason for the abuse of the appellants by the respondents was not because of their nationality but rather their vulnerability owing to their particular status as migrant workers.

In concluding her Judgment Lady Hale highlighted that the current law can only redress some of the harms suffered by the appellants despite the fact that they deserve remedies for all the grievous harm suffered.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

“No doubt, if these employers had employed British nationals to work for them in their homes, they would not have treated them so badly. They would probably not have been given the opportunity to do so. But equally, if they had employed non-British nationals who had the right to live and work here, they would not have treated them so badly. The reason why these employees were treated so badly was their particular vulnerability arising, at least in part, from their particular immigration status. As Mr Rahman pointed out, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Akwiwu, it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Nigerians. The employers too were non-nationals, but they were not vulnerable in the same way.” At paragraph 26.

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.