Race 



Section 9, EA 10 says that “race” includes colour (for example, black or white); nationality (for example, British or French); ethnic or national origins (for example, Roma or Irish travellers). This is not an exhaustive list.



A racial group can comprise one or more racial groups, for example, “black Britons” or “south Asians”. There can also be a group defined by exclusion — for instance, “non-British”. Sometimes a claimant may suffer race discrimination on multiple grounds. For instance, a “Nigerian” worker mistreated at work may suffer discrimination under each of the categories of colour, nationality, ethnicity or national origin. Similarly, in cases where a person’s ethnicity and religion or belief are closely interrelated, the individual may suffer both race and religion or belief discrimination. 



In Taiwo v Olaigbe [2016] UKSC 31, a Nigerian migrant domestic worker failed to persuade the Supreme Court that her vulnerability resulting from dependence on her employer for accommodation, food and the right to remain in the UK, was “inextricably linked” to her race. Mistreatment due to vulnerability as a migrant worker is not direct race discrimination, said the court. Immigration status is not the same as “nationality” of the purposes of the EA 10.


In Lindsay v London School of Economics [2013] EWCA Civ 1650, the EAT refused to rule that some words are always racist, irrespective of context. In this case, the word “gollywog” was used during a discussion about the labelling of Robinsons’ jam. The court accepted that the word, if directed towards a black person, would obviously be racist and offensive.