From Awareness to Accountability: Reflecting on Race Discrimination in the Workplace
Last week marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – a day focused on raising awareness of race discrimination globally. The aspiration and aim to eliminate racial discrimination from the workplace is, for employers, a key issue of both legal and cultural accountability.
The legal framework
Under the Equality Act 2010, race is a protected characteristic encompassing colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins. The legislation recognises several distinct forms of discrimination, each with its own legal test – and each regularly tested in the Employment Tribunal.
Direct discrimination arises where, because of race, an individual is treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator. If the employee raises facts from which less favourable treatment can be inferred then the burden shifts to the employer to show that the treatment was not because of race. There is no defence.
Indirect discrimination is often more subtle. It occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice (PCP) places those of a particular race at a particular disadvantage, and the employer cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. So, for example, a company requires all employees to have UK work experience to apply for promotion. This rule applies to everyone, but it may disadvantage workers from other countries, and could be indirect race discrimination unless the employer can justify it.
Harassment involves unwanted conduct related to race that has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile or degrading environment. Tribunals will consider both the subjective experience of the individual and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
Harassment can be defended only if the employer can show it took all reasonable steps to prevent it. This is a very difficult defence to run successfully. In Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen, equality training delivered just two years earlier was found to be ineffective and “stale”, meaning the employer could not rely on it to avoid liability for harassment. The message is clear – training must be active, refreshed, and embedded.
Victimisation arises where an employee suffers a detriment because they have done a “protected act”, such as raising a complaint of race discrimination.
What does ‘eliminating’ racial discrimination look like in practice?
The elimination of race discrimination in the workplace is an admirable goal but, make no mistake, it is aspirational. According to a 2025 survey by CIPHR around 1 in 11 people reported feeling discriminated against at work or as a job applicant because of race. This figure shows that racial discrimination is a long way from being ‘eliminated’ in the workplace. However, this does not mean that HR should not aim high. Here are some ideas for how HR can do just that:
- HR teams should move beyond reactive policies and ensure that training is regular, tailored, and reflective of real workplace scenarios – including unconscious bias and microaggressions.
- Employers should interrogate their own data. Disparities in recruitment, progression or disciplinary outcomes may indicate indirect discrimination risks, even where no complaint has been raised.
- Leadership remains critical. Tribunal scrutiny often extends to whether senior management has set a clear and consistent tone on equality.
- When complaints arise, process is everything. Prompt, impartial investigations and evidence-based decision-making are essential – not only to reach fair outcomes, but to defend them.
As we reflect on last week’s awareness day, the key takeaway is this: the Equality Act 2010 does not simply require employers to respond to discrimination. It requires them to anticipate, prevent, and, if at all possible, eliminate it.