Home » Employment » Different types of worker » Exclusions: armed forces, illegal contracts

Exclusions: armed forces, illegal contracts

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 5th December 2017.

The armed forces are excluded from disability discrimination provisions, but support is available. Also employers sometimes have a defence if the employment contract is illegal, and there are limited exceptions for charities.

Summary

  • The armed forces are excluded from the Equality Act employment provisions on disability.
  • There is a Defence Stammering Network which supports people who stammer in the armed services, military and civilian.
  • Ministry of Defence civilian employees, without a rank, should still fall within the Equality Act.
  • If the employment is illegal, it may sometimes give the employer a defence to an Equality Act claim. Below Illegal contracts.

Exclusion of the armed forces

Service in the armed forces is excluded from the Equality Act employment provisions on disability (EqA Sch 9 para 4(3)). Employment as a Ministry of Defence civilian, without a rank, should still fall within the Equality Act. See below on ’employment services’ related to the armed forces.

The Government has said the exclusion is

“because Armed Forces personnel need to be combat effective in order to meet a world-wide liability to deploy, and to ensure that military health and fitness remain matters for Ministry of Defence Ministers based on military advice, not for the courts.”

An amendment challenging the exclusion was resisted by the Government in the House of Commons Committee on the Equality Bill (col 346-349, Hansard, Public Bill Cttee, 18th June 2009 (link to UK Parliament website)) and also in the House of Lords Committee (from col 1278 HL Hansard 25th Jan 2010 (link to UK Parliament website)).

In 2009 the UK government maintained its position by entering a reservation on service in the armed forces in its ratification of the UN Disability Convention – see Hansard, Statement 13th May 2009 ‘Disabled People: UN Convention’ (link to parliament.uk) from where the quote above is taken.

Support for stammering in the armed services

There is a Defence Stammering Network which is an internal network of support for stammering in the armed forces. It is open to both military and civilian employees of UK defence. See Employment stammering networks>Defence Stammering Network.

‘Employment services’ related to the armed forces

Work experience in the armed forces is also excluded from Equality Act protection (EqA Sch 9 para 4(3)).

‘Employment services’ include such things as careers guidance, vocational training, and employment agencies (EqA s.55, 56, Employment Code para 11.59). Some protection for ’employment services’ relating to the armed forces is excluded by EqA Sch 9 para 5, and some is not. For example, it seems that ’employment services’ relating to the armed forces are still within the Equality Act as regards the reasonable adjustment duty on employment service providers and harassment by them.

Various exclusions abolished in October 2004

Various jobs which used to be excluded were brought within the DDA, now the Equality Act, from October 2004. Examples are prison officers, fire-fighters, police officers, and offers of partnership.

Illegal contracts

Where the employment contract or performance of it is illegal, this can sometimes give the employer a defence to an Equality Act claim.

However, illegality is more likely to defeat an unfair dismissal claim, for example, than an Equality Act claim.

Hounga v Allen, (link to bailii.org), Supreme Court, July 2014
The employer helped the claimant to enter the UK illegally when she was 14, with the claimant’s knowing participation. The claimant worked as an au pair, and was subject to serious physical abuse. She was told that if she left the home she would be imprisoned because her presence in the UK was illegal. She was then forcibly evicted. She brought various claims, including under the Race Relations Act (now the Equality Act). Her contract of employment was illegal under immigration legislation. Neverthess, the Supreme Court held she could claim discrimination. There was no ‘inextricable link’ between the claimant’s illegal conduct and the actions complained of, if that was the relevant test. But the majority of the Supreme Court considered the illegality defence in the context of concern to preserve the integrity of the legal system. The majority found that the considerations of public policy in favour of the defence scarcely existed in the present case, and also that to the extent they did exist, they should give way to the public policy of combatting trafficking and protecting its victims.

Charities etc

There are also certain exceptions relating to disabled charities and to supported employment (s.193 EqA).