In EAD Solicitors v Abrams, Abrams was a member of a limited liability partnership (LLP). He was due to retire at 62. Abrams set up a limited company as he approached retirement. He was the sole director.  Abrams withdrew from the LLP’s membership and his ‘company’ took his place. The company was entitled to receive the profit share Abrams would have received had he continued as a member, and in return, the company agreed to supply the services of an appropriate fee-earner to the LLP, which would normally be Abrams himself. 

The LLP objected to Abrams continuing to provide services to it once he had reached 62 and to his company’s continuing membership of the LLP.  Abrams presented a direct age discrimination claim under S.13 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010), naming himself as the first claimant and his company as the second claimant. At a preliminary hearing, an employment judge decided that discrimination by association could have occurred against the ‘company’ if the LLP had treated it less favourably because of Abrams’ age. The LLP appealed, arguing that only an individual can have the protected characteristic of age and therefore the EA 2010 only protects individuals, not companies.

The EAT rejected the appeal. The EA 2010 makes direct discrimination unlawful ‘because of’ the protected characteristic. This means protection against less favourable treatment caused by or related to the protected characteristic applies not only those possessing the protected characteristic but also those associated with it. In addition, under the Interpretation Act 1978, a ‘person’ means “a body of persons corporate or unincorporate” unless any other Act defines it differently. Nothing in the EA 2010 indicates that the term ‘person’ should be given a different meaning, nor is there anything to suggest that persons who are treated less favourably need to be individuals. 

This landmark ruling confirms that a company, with a working relationship with another organisation, may present a claim for discrimination in its own right and seek compensation for financial loss, if it suffers detrimental treatment because of the protected characteristics of individuals associated with it such as its directors, employees, and so on.

For further detailed commentary, read Makbool Javaid’s in-depth article in the employment law section of CIPD People Management Online.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.