Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

The Equality Act 2010 consolidated most previous equality legislation into a single statute and defines nine protected characteristics.

They are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Learning the list is worthwhile because questions frequently turn on whether a characteristic is protected at all, and the protections are not identical in scope. Two points are commonly missed. Marriage and civil partnership is protected in employment, covering direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation, but it is not generally protected in the provision of services, and the harassment provisions do not apply to it at all. Gender reassignment protects a person who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process of reassigning sex, and does not require any medical treatment or legal recognition to apply.

The Act applies to employment, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and the exercise of public functions. A sports club providing healthcare to its athletes will usually be providing a service, and depending on the relationship the employment, services, education, association or public function provisions may apply, so the duties bite whether or not the organisation is public.

Several distinct forms of unlawful conduct exist and distinguishing them is the substance of most questions on this topic.

Direct discrimination is treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination is applying a provision, criterion or practice equally to everyone, which puts people sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage and puts the individual concerned at that disadvantage too. The key point is that indirect discrimination requires no intent and is entirely compatible with treating everybody the same, which is precisely why it is missed. Both a provision that indirectly discriminates and unfavourable treatment arising from disability may be lawful if the organisation can show objective justification, meaning a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, which requires showing that less discriminatory alternatives were considered.

Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Victimisation is treating someone badly because they have made or supported a complaint under the Act, and protects the process itself. Discrimination arising from disability covers unfavourable treatment because of something connected to a disability rather than the disability itself.

Sitting apart from these is the duty to make reasonable adjustments, which applies only in relation to disability and is unusual in being anticipatory for service providers. That means service providers must consider predictable access barriers in advance, and a failure to anticipate and make a reasonable adjustment can be unlawful even where nobody has asked. What is reasonable depends on the disadvantage, the effectiveness and practicality of the change, the disruption involved and the provider's resources.

Reasonable adjustments are changes made to prevent a disabled person being placed at a substantial disadvantage. They fall into three broad kinds: changing a provision, criterion or practice, altering or removing a physical feature, and providing an auxiliary aid or service. What is reasonable depends on the size and resources of the organisation, the practicality of the change and its effectiveness. The cost of the adjustment cannot be passed to the disabled person.

In a sporting healthcare context the recurring examples are practical rather than exotic. A digital pre-assessment form that a visually impaired athlete cannot complete is a provision that disadvantages them and needs an accessible alternative. A treatment room reachable only by stairs is a physical feature. An athlete who is deaf may need an interpreter for a consultation about a complex diagnosis rather than a written summary afterwards.

The public sector equality duty (PSED) applies to public authorities and to bodies exercising public functions. It requires them to have due regard to three aims: eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation; advancing equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and fostering good relations between them. Due regard means genuine, informed and timely consideration of equality effects at the point of decision. It is a substantive duty rather than a paperwork exercise, though a contemporaneous record is strong evidence of compliance. Marriage and civil partnership is relevant only to the first of the three aims. Many sports bodies receiving public funding operate under equality standards that mirror these requirements even where the statutory duty does not directly apply.

Three patterns recur. The first is that sport frequently disadvantages groups through design rather than intent: training times that exclude those with caring responsibilities, facilities inaccessible to disabled athletes and staff, medical documentation available only in English, and social activities organised around alcohol. Each may generate indirect disadvantage even where the motivation is entirely benign, and should prompt assessment, consultation and proportionate alternatives rather than being assumed lawful or assumed unlawful.

The second is that the practitioner is often the person best placed to notice. Clinicians see who does not attend, who brings a family member to translate, and who declines assessment. Reliance on a family interpreter raises accuracy, confidentiality, safeguarding and voluntariness concerns, and a professional interpreter should be used where clinically necessary. Such observations are useful equality indicators, though collecting formal equality monitoring data requires a clear purpose, a lawful basis and secure handling.

The third is the interaction with eligibility, which is a genuinely difficult area and is covered in more depth on the eligibility and fairness page. The Act contains a specific exception for sport: separate participation may be permitted in a gender-affected activity where restriction is necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors. It is a statutory exception in defined circumstances rather than a general exemption from equality duties. The clinician's role is to explain the current framework accurately and support the individual athlete, not to advocate a personal position on where the line should sit. Confidentiality obligations do not weaken because an athlete's eligibility is being questioned publicly, and they frequently become harder to hold.

• •Nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, which applies in Great Britain; Northern Ireland legislates separately.
• •Indirect discrimination requires no intent and arises from treating everyone identically.
• •Objective justification can defend indirect discrimination and discrimination arising from disability; direct age discrimination can also be justified, other direct discrimination generally cannot unless a statutory exception applies.
• •The reasonable adjustments duty applies to disability, is anticipatory for service providers, and its cost cannot be charged to the disabled person.
• •The public sector equality duty has three aims: eliminate, advance, foster.
• •Due regard is a substantive duty of genuine, informed and timely consideration, not a paperwork requirement.