AI at work and the Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 does not mention artificial intelligence, and it does not need to. It regulates what employers do in recruitment, terms, promotion, training and dismissal, whatever tool they use to do it. This page sets out the sections that matter most when AI is involved, taken from the text on legislation.gov.uk, for employers and workers in England, Wales and Scotland. For the separate UK data protection rules on automated decisions, see automated decisions about workers under UK data law.

The short answer: an AI screening, scoring or ranking system is a provision, criterion or practice. If it puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, the employer has to show it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates and staff, and are liable for what is done in the course of employment, including decisions made with a vendor's tool.

Where the Act applies at work: section 39

An employer must not discriminate against job applicants in the arrangements it makes for deciding to whom to offer employment, in the terms offered or by not offering employment. Against employees, it must not discriminate as to terms of employment, in access to promotion, transfer, training or other benefits, by dismissing them, or by any other detriment (Equality Act 2010, section 39). CV filters, interview scoring, shift allocation, performance ratings and redundancy selection tools all sit inside these stages. For promotion, transfer and training decisions in particular, see AI in promotion and training decisions. Client firms owe similar duties to agency and contractor staff; see the hirer's equality duties to agency staff.

Direct and indirect discrimination

• Direct (section 13): treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic. For age only, the employer may show the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (section 13). A tool that is told to prefer recent graduates, or that uses a proxy designed to stand in for a characteristic, raises this risk; see direct discrimination. The narrow exception for jobs that genuinely require a characteristic is explained under occupational requirements, and the specific exceptions for service-based benefits, youth rates and enhanced redundancy pay under age exceptions for pay, service and redundancy.
• Indirect (section 19): applying a provision, criterion or practice to everyone that puts people who share a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, and puts the individual at that disadvantage, unless the employer shows it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (section 19). The protected characteristics covered are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Indirect discrimination is where most AI risk lies. A model trained on past hiring or promotion data can reproduce the patterns in that data without anyone intending it, and the employer, not the vendor, has to justify the result. For what an employer may lawfully do to encourage under-represented groups, see positive action and the tie-breaker rule.

Disability: section 15 and reasonable adjustments

For the legal test of what counts as a disability, including conditions controlled by treatment and those likely to recur, see that page. Treating a disabled person unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability is discrimination unless it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or the employer did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disability (section 15). A productivity score that penalises slower typing or longer breaks linked to a condition is an example of the risk; see discrimination arising from disability.

Section 39(5) applies the duty to make reasonable adjustments to employers. Under section 20, where a provision, criterion or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage, the employer must take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid it, provide auxiliary aids where needed, and provide information in an accessible format. The disabled person cannot be charged for this (section 20). In practice that can mean an alternative to a timed online test or a video interview scored by software. See also AI and disabled workers, and on what a screening tool may ask before an offer, health questions before a job offer.

Liability and proof

• Employer liability (section 109): anything done by an employee in the course of employment is treated as done by the employer, and anything done by an agent with the employer's authority is treated as done by the employer. An employer can defend a claim about an employee's act by showing it took all reasonable steps to prevent it (section 109). For what the reasonable steps defence can look like with AI tools, see employer liability for staff and agents. Staff, agents and vendors can have their own liability too; see instructing or helping discrimination.
• Burden of proof (section 136): if there are facts from which a tribunal could decide, without another explanation, that discrimination happened, it must find so unless the employer shows it did not contravene the Act (section 136). An employer that cannot explain how a tool reached its output may struggle to give that explanation.
• Time limits (section 123): employment tribunal claims must be brought within 6 months of the act complained of, or such other period as the tribunal thinks just and equitable. The 6 month limit applies where the relevant date is on or after 1 October 2026; before that the limit was 3 months (section 123; S.I. 2026/954, regulation 4).
• Remedies (section 124): a tribunal may make a declaration, order compensation and make a recommendation; see what a tribunal can order.

Practical steps for employers

• Before buying, ask the vendor what data the tool was trained on, which inputs it uses and what testing it has had for different groups. Get the answers in writing.
• Monitor outcomes by protected characteristic where you lawfully hold the data, and write down the legitimate aim and why the tool is a proportionate way to meet it.
• Offer and advertise an adjustment route for every automated test, interview or score.
• Keep a person able to explain and change each hiring, pay, promotion or dismissal decision. See AI in hiring and AI in performance reviews.

For workers and candidates

If you think an automated test or score treated you unfairly because of a protected characteristic, write down what happened and when, ask the employer for the reasons and whether software was involved, and ask for an adjustment if you are disabled. Raising the concern is itself protected against victimisation. Note the time limit and seek advice early; see time limits and the burden of proof. If you were dismissed, see also unfair dismissal when AI data is behind the decision. On the employer duty to prevent sexual harassment, including by clients and customers, see the UK duty to prevent sexual harassment. For trade and professional qualifications assessed by software, see qualifications bodies and AI-run assessments. For unions and professional bodies using AI with members, see trade organisations and the Equality Act. For office-holders and public appointments, see office-holders and AI screening. For partners and LLP members, see partners, LLP members and AI scoring. For pupillage and barristers' chambers, see barristers, pupillage and AI tools. For harassment related to a protected characteristic, including AI-generated content, see AI and harassment at work. For the reasonable adjustments duty in detail, see reasonable adjustments for AI tools. For the full indirect discrimination test in sections 19, 19A and 23, see indirect discrimination. For equal pay claims and job evaluation, see equal pay and AI pay tools. On discussing pay with colleagues despite a confidentiality clause, and gender pay gap reporting, see pay secrecy and pay gap reporting. For the extra duty on public authorities, see the public sector equality duty and AI. For the US federal rules, see AI and discrimination at work under US federal law. The Equality Act 2010 applies in England, Wales and Scotland; Northern Ireland has separate legislation. This page is general information, not legal advice.