Introduction

Williams v. The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme & Anor ([2018] UKSC 65) is a landmark judgment delivered by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on December 17, 2018. The case centers around the interpretation of "treats unfavourably" within the framework of Section 15(1) of the Equality Act 2010, specifically concerning disability discrimination in the context of pension schemes.

The appellant, Mr. Williams, an employee with Tourette's syndrome and other disabilities, contended that the calculation of his pension benefits, which were based on his part-time salary following a phased return to work due to his health conditions, amounted to unfavorable treatment arising from his disability. The respondents, Swansea University and the Pension Scheme Trustees, defended their calculation method, arguing that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The central issue revolved around whether the reduced pension calculation constituted unfavourable treatment under the Equality Act 2010, and if so, whether the respondents could justify this treatment under Section 15(1)(b) as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Lord Carnwath, ultimately dismissed Mr. Williams' appeal. The majority opinion held that Mr. Williams had not been treated unfavourably within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the Equality Act 2010. The court emphasized that the term "unfavourably" should be interpreted objectively, focusing on whether the treatment was adverse compared to that which is beneficial, without necessitating a direct comparison to how others might be treated.

The court rejected the notion that Mr. Williams' pension calculation constituted unfavorable treatment purely because it was based on his part-time salary due to his disability. It was held that had Mr. Williams not been disabled and had continued working full-time, he would not have been entitled to any pension until his normal retirement date. Therefore, the pension he received was not unfavorable but rather a benefit arising from his disability-related circumstances.

Additionally, the court clarified that the provision in the Equality Act 2010 was intended to remove the requirement for a comparator, focusing instead on whether the treatment itself was unfavorable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the interpretation of "treats unfavourably" as an objective assessment without the need for direct comparison to others.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior case law to contextualize and interpret the provisions of the Equality Act 2010:

• Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm ([2008] UKHL 43; [2008] 1 AC 1399): This case significantly influenced the understanding of discrimination within the management of property and the interpretation of "treats unfavourably." The Supreme Court in Williams distinguished its interpretation from Malcolm, particularly regarding the necessity of a comparator.
• Clark v Novacold Ltd ([1999] ICR 951): This case dealt with the appropriate comparison for assessing discrimination, highlighting the complexities in choosing comparators, which Williams sought to avoid by focusing on an objective assessment.
• Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary ([2003] UKHL 11; [2003] ICR 337): Relevant for its discussion on the subjective perception of detriment, Shamoon was used to contrast the mixed subjective/objective test in other parts of the Equality Act.
• The Employment Appeal Tribunal case Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2015] EWCA Civ 1265; [2017] ICR 160): Provided a summary of reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Act, informing the broader context of disability discrimination.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning centered on an objective interpretation of "treats unfavourably." Lord Carnwath noted that Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 eliminated the comparator requirement that was prevalent in earlier legislation and cases like Malcolm. Instead, the focus is on whether the treatment is adverse or disadvantageous to the claimant in an objective sense.

The Court assessed the nature of the pension benefits awarded to Mr. Williams, distinguishing between the treatment and the benefits themselves. It was determined that receiving a pension, even if calculated on a part-time salary, was not unfavourable treatment because, in the absence of his disability, Mr. Williams would not have received any pension until his normal retirement age. Thus, the enhanced pension was a beneficial outcome rather than a detriment.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of "unfavourable treatment" involves assessing whether the treatment is objectively adverse compared to something beneficial, without requiring a direct comparison to how others might be treated.

Impact

The Williams judgment has significant implications for future cases involving disability discrimination, particularly in contexts where benefits or terms are adjusted due to a claimant’s disability. Key impacts include:

• Clarification of 'Unfavourably Treated': Establishes that "treats unfavourably" is to be understood objectively, focusing on whether the treatment is adverse compared to something beneficial, rather than requiring a direct comparator.
• Removal of Comparator Requirement: Solidifies the interpretation that comparison with others is not necessary, simplifying the prosecution of discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.
• Guidance on Pension Schemes: Provides clarity for pension schemes and employers on how benefits calculated based on part-time salaries should be viewed in the context of disability discrimination.
• Objective Assessment Emphasis: Encourages tribunals and courts to adopt an objective stance when assessing claims of unfavorable treatment, focusing on the nature of the treatment rather than subjective experiences.

Overall, the judgment strengthens the framework of the Equality Act 2010 by providing a clearer, more objective standard for evaluating unfavorable treatment related to disability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

'Treats Unfavourably'

The term "treats unfavourably" under Section 15(1) of the Equality Act 2010 refers to any adverse or disadvantageous treatment of a disabled person. In this case, it does not require comparing the treatment to how others are treated but rather assessing whether the treatment itself is objectively adverse.

Objective vs. Subjective Assessment

The court emphasized an objective approach, meaning the assessment is based on an external standard of what is generally considered adverse, rather than relying on the claimant's personal feelings or perceptions of disadvantage.

Proportionate Means of Achieving a Legitimate Aim

If treatment is deemed unfavourable, the employer or respondent must show that the treatment is a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate goal. In this case, the Respondents did not need to justify the treatment because the court found it was not unfavourable.

Enhanced Element of Pension

This refers to the additional pension benefits that Mr. Williams received. These benefits were calculated based on his actual (part-time) salary and deemed pensionable service as if he had continued to work until the normal pension date.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme & Anor provides a pivotal interpretation of "treats unfavourably" within the Equality Act 2010. By adopting an objective assessment standard, the Court clarified that unfavorable treatment does not necessitate a direct comparator but hinges on whether the treatment itself is adverse compared to beneficial alternatives.

This judgment not only reinforces the protective measures against disability discrimination but also offers clear guidance for employers and pension schemes in structuring benefits. It underscores the importance of objective assessments in discrimination claims, ensuring that disabled individuals receive fair and unbiased treatment without the complexities of establishing direct comparators.

Ultimately, this decision fortifies the Equality Act's framework, promoting a more straightforward and equitable approach to addressing disability-related discrimination in various contexts.