Home » Education and people who stammer in Britain » Work placements related to education courses

Work placements related to education courses

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 7th November, 2025.

Work placements are covered by the Equality Act 2010 (EqA), subject to some possible uncertainty after Brexit if they are accessed through an education provider. Claims may need to go either to the employment tribunal or county court.

This area is regrettably complicated, due to government failure to clarify the position after Brexit, and having to sort out which court claims go to.

Summary

  • From 1st January 2024 (abolition of the supremacy of EU law), it is sometimes uncertain whether the work placement provider is liable under the EqA: below Uncertainty after Brexit. Subject to that …
  • The university (or FE college), or the work placement provider, is liable if it unlawfully discriminates in relation to work placements. So is any separate professional exam body. Below Discrimination covered by the Equality Act.
  • A student will be looking to resolve the situation without having to go to court: separate page Resolving issues at university or FE college.
  • If a legal claim is brought, sometimes it will need to go to the employment tribunal – which a claimant will generally prefer over the county court – or sometimes to the county court (sheriff court in Scotland). This affects time limits. Below Which court?
  • One considers the liability of each body, eg university and placement provider, separately rather than treating them as a single entity. Below Liability of each body should be considered separately.
  • This page focuses on work placements related to a university course or further education (FE) course. On work placements related to schools, see below Schools.
  • Work experience not related to a university, FE college or school should simply be within the EqA employment provisions: Work experience.

In 2002 the DfES published a good practice guide for further and higher education institutions: Providing Work Placements for Disabled Students (pdf, dera.ioe.ac.uk).

Discrimination covered by the EqA

The university (or FE college) and the work placement provider should both be subject to the EqA – subject to possible Uncertainty after Brexit, below as regards the placement provider. For professional exams any separate ‘qualifications body’ may also be liable.

For example, the student should have a claim against the university for discrimination by the university in arranging the placement, and (subject to any Brexit uncertainty) against the work placement provider for discrimination by it in the workplace.

Essentially each body, eg university and placement provider, is liable for discrimination by it. One looks at each body’s liability individually, rather than treating them as a single entity: see below Liability of each body should be considered separately. However:

  • However, I suggest that each body may be primarily liable – for its own actions – if both contribute to a discriminatory outcome: Both bodies may have primary liability?
  • Also, as discussed below under Which court? and Ancillary liability, both bodies may be liable if eg is agent of the other, or “knowingly helps” discrimination by the other.

Which court/tribunal (below) the claim should go to is determined mainly by which body the claim is against, and whether it is for “ancillary liability”.

The normal types of discrimination apply – subject to the rules on competence standards applied by universities or professional bodies in assessments or for admission.

The possible post-Brexit uncertainty – as to whether some work placement providers are liable at all, at least if a case gets to the Supreme Court – relates to whether the Court of Appeal decision In Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust still applies. EqA wording says that work experience is not protected as an “employment service” if the student’s university or other Part 6 eduction provider has “power to afford access” to it. The Court of Appeal “re-interpreted” this to comply with EU law, so that students discriminated against by a placement provider were not left without a claim in some situations. Even if this reinterpretation can no longer be based on EU law, it may be possible to argue for the same result under human rights law. Below Uncertainty after Brexit.

There are some technical points below on coverage of placement providers and universities. In particular, for a claim under the EqA employment provisions, a student may be either an “employee” or within the “employment services” provisions.

Which court?

Most importantly, a student will be looking to resolve the situation without having to go to court. See Resolving issues at university or FE college.

If a legal claim is brought, it may have to go to either the employment tribunal or county court (sheriff court in Scotland), depending on the facts.

Legally a particular claim has to be brought in the right tribunal/court, but a claimant may potentially have a choice through choosing which claims to make: below Both bodies may have primary liability? If the court to which a claim is brought does not have jurisdiction, it will reject the claim. Claimants would probably prefer the employment tribunal, other things being equal, not least because there is less risk of having to pay the other side’s legal costs if one loses (cf tribunal decision in Oni §268). The time limit varies depending on the tribunal/court, see below.

  1. Subject to 3. below, claims by a student against their university or FE college should be under the EqA Part 6 education rules EqA (s.91), and go to the county court (or sheriff court in Scotland). The time limit for bringing the claim is generally six months, sometimes nine – see Resolving issues at university or FE college.
  2. Subject to 3. below, claims against the work placement provider (or a “qualifications body” for professional exams) should be under EqA Part 5 (Work), and go to the employment tribunal. The time limit for bringing a claim is generally three months – see Resolving employment disputes.
  3. However that will not always be the case, as discussed by the Court of Appeal in Blackwood at §61. If body A is liable under ss.110-112 EqA – broadly on the basis that A acted as agent of body B, or (subject to an important precondition) “instructed“, “caused” or “induced” discrimination by body B (or attempted to), or knowingly helped discrimination by body B – then a claim against body A under s.110-112 is within the jurisdiction of the court/tribunal applicable to body B, rather than A’s normal court. More below Ancillary liabilities.

It should be remembered that the liability of each body should be considered separately, below.

The position as summarised by the Court of Appeal in Blackwood at §61 if a work placement is accessed through the university is that:

  • claims about access are likely to be primarily against the university and go to the county court (including any ancillary liabilities of the placement provider under ss.110-112)
  • claims about discrimination by the work placement provider in the course of the work placement will typically have been done by the provider as principal, rather than as the university’s agent. So the provider is likely to be liable in the employment tribunal.

However, I suggest there are many cases in which both bodies may have primary liability, giving greater flexibility as to which court a claim can be taken to: below Both bodies may have primary liability?

The Court of Appeal in Blackwood acknowledged that there may occasionally be cases in which a student wishes to complain both about discrimination regarding access to a work placement and about discrimination in the course of the placement, and has to bring claims in both the county court and the employment tribunal.

Both bodies may have primary liability?

I think it is useful to consider whether both bodies – university/FE college, and also the placement provider – are directly liable, on the facts. In other words, both bodies may be liable for discrimination based on their own actions and own relationship with the claimant, even without ancillary liabilities such as helping the other or acting as its agent. This could apply particularly for access to a work placement, but is not limited to that.

Access to a placement

Let’s look at the following example in EHRC guidance from 2014 (written before the Blackwell case):

“Example: An engineering manufacturing firm offers 10 internships for engineering students who have completed their course at a local FE college. The firm explains to the course tutor that they have an all-male working environment and so only want male interns. The course tutor agrees to advertise the opportunity to male ex-students only. The engineering firm would be discriminating because of sex and the education provider would be unlawfully assisting them.”
Para 3.34 of the EHRC’s 2014 Technical guidance on further and higher education, as an example of it being unlawful under s.112 EqA to “knowingly help” someone else discriminate: below Ancillary liability.

Note: A claim against the FE college (for “helping”) would go to the employment tribunal (s.112(5)), like the claim against the firm (for direct discrimination).
I suggest that the FE college may also be liable in a county court claim for discrimination by it under EqA Part 6 (education). Claims by former students can be covered by the EqA.

Let’s say that the places were being offered as placements to current students (rather than ex-students). Also the request by the placement provider might relate to disability rather than sex. I suggest that:

  • The FE college should be liable in a county court claim under s.91 EqA in the Part 6 education provisions (University and FE: the rules). (The engineering firm may or may not have some ancillary liability in the county court; as to a possible claim that the firm “induced” etc discrimination by the FE college, a key issue would be whether the condition in s.111(7) is met.)
  • The engineering firm should be liable in an employment tribunal claim for discrimination under either s.55(1) EqA or (for prospective “employees”) s.39(1) EqA in Part 5 (work). The FE college should also be liable in an employment tribunal claim, for “knowingly helping” under s.112, as set out in the EHRC example above. (These employment tribunal claims would be subject to the possible Brexit uncertainty if the FE college had power to afford access to the placement, unless the student was a prospective “employee” of the firm.)

So effectively the claimant may have a choice which claim(s) to pursue, and thus whether to claim in the county court or employment tribunal – provided the court/tribunal is the right one for whichever claims are chosen.

Each of the FE college and the engineering firm have the relationship with the student required to make them directly/primarily liable under the EqA: FE college and student within Part 6, and employer and prospective placee/employee within Part 5 (provided the student had a genuine interest in the placement: Garcia v The Leadership Factor). So each body can be directly liable for its own acts, as well as any ancillary liability it may have for acts of or attributed to, the other body. It is not like contract law, where an agent A entering a contract on behalf person B normally drops out of the picture legally, so that only person B is liable to the other party under the contract. That does not apply to tort (common law, eg negligence), nor to the EqA.

There is the question of whether both bodies having direct liability may sometimes affect the reinterpretation of s.55(5) in Blackwood (if still applicable). But I won’t discuss that.

Employer required to “pass” student

I suggest this is another situation where each body may be directly liable (even without ancillary liability) for its own discriminatory actions, under EqA Parts 6 and 5.

Example: A student cannot continue her course unless the placement provider “passes” her. The placement provider refuses to pass the student for a reason related to the stammer.

If this is unjustified, the discrimination is likely to be covered by the EqA (subject to the possible Brexit uncertainty, below, regarding the placement provider’s liability). However, the technical details and reasoning for how liability would work (and so which court a dispute would go to) seem unclear, and would in any event depend on the detailed facts:

  • It might be argued that the university is liable in the county court under s.91 EqA in Part 6 (education) for refusing to let the student continue her course. This might be a failure to make reasonable adjustments, or discrimination arising from disability (s.15), unless it disregards the provider’s refusal to pass the student – after due investigation of whether the refusal was justified.
  • The placement provider might be liable for refusing to pass the student:
    • in the employment tribunal for discrimination under EqA Part 5 (work) – eg under s.55(2)(d) if the discrimination is seen as “in relation to the provision of” work experience, with s.15 or whatever other head of discrimination (subject to Brexit uncertainty), and/or
    • in the county court in respect of one of the ancillary liabilities, such as causing or inducing a breach by the university, though it may be difficult to show that the two bodies have the required relationship within s.111(7).

Ancillary liability

A company or other body can be liable not only for discrimination by itself, but also where it is involved (in specified ways) in discrimination by someone else. So a university (or FE college) or a placement provider can sometimes be liable for discrimination by the other. Specifically:

In these three cases, body A is liable in the court/tribunal applicable to body B (s.110(6), s.111(9), s.112(5)): above Which court?

While it will depend on the facts, I suggest that, of those, “helping” under s.112 is most likely to be useful as regards work placements (as in the EHRC example above), given the issues of whether there is the necessary relationship for s.111 to apply.

Ancillary liability is more limited in relation to schools. S.110 does not apply to an agent of a school discriminating against pupils, and s.112 does not apply to helping a school discriminate against pupils: below Ancillary liability for discrimination by schools.

S.111(7): Relationship between university and placement provider

S.111 EqA (instructing, causing or inducing) does not apply unless there is a relationship between inducer etc and inducee within which discrimination is prohibited: s.111(7), discussed in Instructing or causing discrimination, or helping it>S.111(7): relationship between inducer and inducee, including S.111(7): Examples on education and training.

What exactly s.111(7) means is sometimes unclear. I think it will very often be unclear as regards the relationship between a university and a placement provider. In any event, each case will depend on its facts. Possible types of relationship between a university (or FE college) and placement provider include the following:

  • Is one of the bodies (the one alleged to be inducing etc) providing a service or facilities to the public or a section of the public, including to the other body, so as to fall within s.29 EqA (Services)?
    • There may be an agreement between them relating to placements, which may perhaps meet this requirment.
    • Or does the service to the public need to relate to the placement at all? Say the placement provider operates transport, or hotels, which the university sometimes books for its staff. Would that be enough for s.111(7), if the placement provider was the inducer?
  • S.29(6) EqA) covers discrimination “in the exercise of a public function“, defined in s.31(4) as a “function of a public nature” within the Human Rights Act 1998 (“Public authorities” in Human Rights Act>“Hybrid” public authorities). Both universities and public sector employers – and private sector employers contracted to provide public services – may fall within the scope of the Human Rights Act. However, there may be arguments as to whether employment functions are public functions, and also (as in the previous bullet point) whether any ways in which one body can exercise public functions in relation to the other need to be related to the placement.

Schools

This page focuses on work placements related to universities and FE colleges. The EqA provisions for schools in this context are similar to those for universities, but there may still be differences as regards work placements arranged by schools.

If the school had power to afford access to the placement, but the claim – eg for failure to make reasonable adjustments during the placement – would need to be against the placement provider in an employment tribunal (and the student is not an “employee”), it may well be difficult to rely on EU law to allow such a claim, as there is no appeal court decision re-interpreting s.56(4), on schools. This is so even though the arguments should be similar to those accepted in Blackwood as regards s.56(5)). However, it might still be argued that s.56(4) should be re-interpreted based on human rights law. On these issues as regards (mainly) univerisities, see below Uncertainty after Brexit.

Assuming s.56(4) can be re-interpreted similarly to Blackwood, and subject to the next paragraph, discrimination claims should go either to the employment tribunal or (where under Which court? above a claim would go do the county court) to the appropriate tribunal for schools. The appropriate schools tribunal will depend on whether it is England, Wales or Scotland: see Schools: Resolving disputes.

Ancillary liability for discrimination by schools

I discuss this in the context of universities and FE colleges above: Ancillary liability.

However, people “knowingly helping” discrimination by schools against pupils are not liable under s.112 (s.112(6)). So a work placement provider would not be liable under EqA Part 6 for helping discrimination by a school against its pupil, but may potentially still be liable under Part 5 in an employment tribunal claim, based on its own relationship with the pupil: above Both bodies may have primary liability? Also, the school could still be liable in the appropriate tribunal for schools under EqA Part 6.

Further, an agent acting on behalf of a school is not itself liable under s.110 EqA for discrimination against pupils (s.110(7)). So if the work placement provider is acting as agent of the school (probably untypical, as the Court of Appeal said in Blackwood), it seems the provider would not be liable under s.110 for discrimination it does on behalf of the school. However, the school and potentially the placement provider could still be liable as in the previous paragraph.

Liability of each body should be considered separately

The liability of each body should be considered separately. For example, the question is what adjustments it would have been reasonable for that body to make. As discussed under Which court? above, both bodies may be liable, for example if one helps discrimination by another, or if there is discrimination by each body for which it is primarily liable. Even so, a claimant needs to show how each particular body is liable. One cannot treat the university and work placement provider as one entity, nor – as in the following case – an employer and a qualifications body:

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust & Health Education England v Jackson (bailii.org), Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), 2018
The claimant was training to be a Consultant Anaesthetist, until she developed a latex allergy. She suffered an anaphylactic reaction when wearing latex gloves, gown and mask. Occupational Health recommended she avoid contact with latex, and work in a latex free environment. After meetings and enquiries, HSE (the NHS body responsible for training) informed her that she would not be able to continue with her training because of the condition, and she resigned from her employment with the Trust. She claimed that both HSE and the Trust had failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments to enable her to continue to work and train in a latex free environment.

The employment tribunal (ET) upheld her claim, on the basis (in effect) that it ought to have been possible somehow to continue her training within the NHS, and that the HSE and Trust had not done enough to investigate matters.

The EAT overturned this decision. The ET had treated the NHS as a single entity, and failed to have proper regard to the specific legal functions and powers of HSE and the Trust. As a result the ET:

  • (a) had imposed liability on both of them indiscriminately without any separate consideration of their respective positions
  • (b) had decided it would have been a reasonable adjustment on the part of both of them to provide training and work in a latex free hospital, when HSE had no control over any hospital, and the Trust had no control over hospitals of other Trusts, and no control over where the HSE required the claimant to carry out her training, and
  • (c) had apparently decided that they should both make adjustments in relation to exams or other speciality training requirements when neither of them had control over these matters.

The decision would be sent back to an ET to reconsider.

If the Trust or HSE were liable, the Trust could be liable as an employer, and HSE could be liable as a “qualifications body” for professional exams (§24 of EAT decision). Both claims would go to an employment tribunal.

Uncertainty after Brexit

Uncertainty: Summary

There is some uncertainty whether a student can claim against a work placement provider that has discriminated if:

  • the student’s university, FE college or school had “power to afford access” to the placement, and
  • the student was not an (actual or prospective) employee/worker (below) of the placement provider within the general EqA employment rules.

If both conditions are met, then on the face of it s.56(4)(5) EqA exclude the work placement from being within EqA Part 5 (work). This would often mean the student has no EqA claim in respect of discrimination by the placement provider.

To address this problem (as regards universities and FE colleges), in 2016 the Court of Appeal in Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust “re-interpreted” s.56(5) to comply with EU law, so that students discriminated against by a placement provider are not left without a claim (below Blackwood: the case itself).

In the light of Brexit, though, it is not clear whether courts should or can continue to apply this re-interpretation for discrimination which happened after the start of 2024 (below Blackwood: Uncertainty whether EU law re-interpretation of EqA continues).

Even if EU law and Blackwood can no longer be relied on, human rights law may be able to remedy the situation, so that the EqA continues to be re-interpreted as set out in Blackwood: below Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights.

The courts will need to decide whether the Blackwood re-interpretation continues in effect, based either on Blackwood itself or on human rights law.

It may currently need a Supreme Court decision to overturn the Blackwood decision: below Blackwood: Uncertainty whether EU law re-interpretation of EqA continues.

As to schools, see further above Schools.

Blackwood: the case itself

Sometimes a student is an “employee” within the EqA definition (or prospective “employee”) of a work placement provider, so as to fall within the general EqA employment provisions (ss.39-40): below “Employee”. If so there should be no problem – the student should have an employment tribunal claim for any discrimination by the placement provider.

If that is not the case, the student can still make an employment tribunal claim against the placement provider under ss.55-56 EqA if the placement is an “employment service”, which generally includes work experience. However, on the face of it, s.56(5) EqA excludes work experience for a student from being an employment service if their university or FE college has “power to afford access” to it.

Where s.56(5) applied, a student (unless they were an actual or prospective “employee”) could be left with no claim against anyone in respect of discrimination by their placement provider:

  • There would be no claim against the university – in the county court, under EqA Part 6 (education) – as it was not the university that discriminated, unless the placement provider was acting as its agent (Ancillary liability), or unless the university itself also discriminated in some way.
  • There would be no claim against the placement provider for the discrimination by it, as –
    • s.56(5) took the provider out of EqA Part 5 (work), and
    • the provider was not an education body liable under EqA Part 6 (unless the provider acted as agent of – or “knowingly helped” or possibly induced etc discrimination by – the university: above Ancillary liability).

This was the problem that arose on the facts of Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, [2016] EWCA Civ 607. A university arranged a placement for a trainee mental health nurse, with an NHS Trust. The Trust withdrew the placement because she was unable to comply with shift patterns, owing to childcare responsibilities. She made an employment tribunal claim for indirect sex discrimination, on the basis that the placement was an employment service within ss.55-56.

The NHS Trust argued that it was not liable. Because the university had “power to afford access” to the placement, it argued, s.56(5) excluded it from being an “employment service”.

However, this would leave the student with no claim for the discrimination, which would breach EU law. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal in Blackwood “re-interpreted” s.56(5) EqA to comply with the EU law, so that work experience was an employment service unless the student had a claim for the relevant discrimination under the EqA Part 6 (education) provision applying to universities and FE colleges (s.91). The Court of Appeal re-worded s.56(5) as follows:

“This section [s.56] does not apply to discrimination in relation to training or guidance for students of an institution to which section 91 applies to the extent that the student is entitled under that section to make a claim as regards that discrimination.”

So the trainee nurse could proceed with her employment tribunal claim against the NHS Trust.

However, it is unclear whether this re-interpretation survived the abolition of the supremacy of EU law, at the start of 2024 …

Blackwood: Uncertainty whether EU law re-interpretation of EqA continues

The Retained EU Law Act 2023 abolished the supremacy of EU law from the end of 2023. For various instances where the courts had re-interpreted the EqA to comply with EU law, regulations amended the EqA from the start of 2024, to reflect the court decisions. However, unfortunately this was not done for Blackwood.

Therefore, it is unclear whether the Blackwood re-interpretation of s.56(5) applies to discrimination occurring on or after 1st January 2024: see Effect of EU law when interpreting Equality Act, from 2024>EU law going beyond EqA wording but not preserved by regulations.

However, because of s.6 EU (Withdrawal Act) 2018 and the fact that the Court of Appeal is bound by its own decisions subject to limited exceptions, it may currently need a Supreme Court decision to overturn the Blackwood decision. (The Court of Appeal should have greater flexibility to depart from its own EU-related decisions if and when s.6 REUL Act 2023 is brought into force: Brexit: Effect of EU law when interpreting Equality Act, from 2024>Technical note: S.6 REUL Act if and when it comes into effect).

Also it may be possible to argue that the Blackwood re-interpretation, or very similar, is also required by human rights law: below Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights.

I outline in what situations the uncertainty arises in Uncertainty: Summary above.

Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights

If the re-interpretation under Blackwood (above) founded on EU law does not survive, it might be argued that the same, or a very similar, re-interpretation is required by the European Convention of Human Rights and Human Rights Act 1998: Human Rights Act 1998/ European Convention>Non-discrimination under Article 14.

If the situation falls within the “ambit” of another Convention Right, and an “other status” within Article 14 can be based on the “power to afford access” criterion, then there seems to me a very strong argument that s.56(5) (and indeed s.56(4) on schools) are in breach of Article 14, so far as they leave the claimant with no remedy. So far as they do, the provisions seem impossible to justify.

As to whether the provisions can be re-interpreted under s.3 Human Rights Act, Blackwood itself would be very persuasive authority that the re-interpretation set out in that case is permissible, on the basis that it does not “go against the grain” of the EqA: Enforcement of European Convention and HRA 1998>Interpreting UK legislation to comply with the Convention.

As to whether this type of situation falls within the “ambit” of another Convention right (“Ambit” of European Convention rights), two obvious possibilities are:

The human rights argument is separate from EU law, and not affected by Brexit.

Note: In some cases it might even be possible to argue that a right to claim to a county court is not enough under Article 14 – that an employment tribunal claim should be possible. An employment tribunal accepted this argument in a different context in Oni v LB Waltham Forest. It was not enough that foster carers had a right to claim to a county court. However, this case is being appealed.

Technical points: Liability of work placement provider

Technical points: “Employee” or “employment service”?

A work placement provider may be liable in an employment tribunal claim – ie under EqA Part 5 (work) – on the basis either that the student is an “employee”, or that the work experience is an “employment service”. It may be prudent for a student bringing a claim to plead both possibilities, in the alternative.

Employee

Firstly, the student may be an “employee” of the placement provider, especially if the student is paid, or otherwise has a contract. Under s.83(2)(a), “employee” in the EqA has an extended meaning which includes a “worker”: see Employees, workers and beyond>Definition or worker, and also Volunteers. But on the wording of the EqA definition, there does need to be a “contract”. The Blackwood case seems not to have considered the possibility of the student being an employee. Maybe she was not in that case.

If the student is an “employee” within the EqA definition, the standard EqA employment provisions (ss.39-40) apply, so there is no need for the “employment services” provisions (ss.55-56) discussed in the next paragraph. S.56(3) excludes the “employment services” provisions if the student is an employee, because EqA ss.39-40 apply.

If not an employee

The second possibility is that the student is not an “employee” within the EqA definition. If so, subject to the Uncertainty after Brexit, EqA s.55 should protect the student against discrimination by the placement provider on the basis that the work experience is an “employment service”. Employment service is defined in EqA s.56 (s.56(2)(a) with (6)(b)) to include “work experience (including work experience the duration of which is not agreed until after it begins)”. The exceptions in s.56(4)(5) are discussed in Uncertainty after Brexit. See too the Employment Code para 11.59.

Under s.56(2)(c), “making arrangements for the provision of” work experience is also an employment service.

See also Work experience>When is a work experience provider within the EqA employment provisions?

Technical points: Type of reasonable adjustment duty

Even where the work experience is an “employment service”, the reasonable adjustment duty on organisations providing work experience is similar to the duty applying to employers generally. See Work experience>Reasonable adjustment duty.

Technical points: Garrard case

Even before Blackwood above, s.56(5) was held not to exclude a claim to an employment tribunal in the case of a postgraduate training programme for doctors, where the court said those on the course were not students:

Garrard v Governing Body of the University of London, [2013] EqLR 746, County Court
This case concerned an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a postgraduate training programme for doctors. Successful applicants were employed by the NHS Trust where the training took place. The London Deanery administered interviews, and was argued to be part of the University of London.

The county court held it had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint against the University of London under Part 6 of the EqA (education). The programme was vocational training within EqA Part 5. S.56(5) did not exclude Part 5, because those on the course were not “students” of the University of London, and anyway the London Deanery’s role was so circumscribed that it did not have power to afford access to the training.

Note: This is not an appeal decision, so is not binding as a precedent on other courts.

Technical points: Liability of university or FE college

As regards EqA duties of the university or FE college not to discriminate, the EqA includes discrimination in relation to any “benefit, facility or service” for a student. The non-exhaustive list of examples of what is covered by this, in para 10.25 of the Technical guidance 2014, includes arranging work placements, and placement-finding services.

See on this area University and FE college – more detail>What activities are covered?

25th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2024