Victimisation for complaining about AI discrimination in Great Britain

As more hiring, scheduling and performance decisions run through software, more workers and candidates will raise concerns that a tool treats people unfairly because of sex, race, disability, age or another protected characteristic. In Great Britain, section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 protects people who make such allegations, or help with a claim, from being punished for it. This page explains how the protection works.

The short answer: a person victimises someone if they subject them to a detriment because that person has done a protected act, or because they believe the person has done or may do one (s27(1)). Protected acts include making an allegation, express or not, that someone has broken the Act (s27(2)(d)). An employer must not victimise job applicants or employees (s39(3) and (4)).

What counts as a protected act

Each of the following is a protected act (s27(2)):

• bringing proceedings under the Act;
• giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under the Act;
• doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with the Act;
• making an allegation, whether or not express, that the employer or another person has contravened the Act.

Contravening the Act includes a breach of an equality clause or rule, such as the sex equality clause in equal pay cases (s27(5)).

In an AI setting, examples can include telling HR that a screening tool seems to reject older or disabled applicants, asking for an alternative to an automated test because of a disability-related disadvantage and saying the tool discriminates, or giving a statement for a colleague's tribunal claim about an automated scheduling or rating system.

Belief is enough

The protection also applies where the employer believes the person has done, or may do, a protected act (s27(1)(b)). So treating someone worse because the employer expects them to complain about a tool, or wrongly thinks they did, can also be victimisation.

The bad-faith exception

Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if it is done in bad faith (s27(3)). An allegation that turns out to be wrong but was made in good faith is still protected. Section 27 applies only where the person subjected to the detriment is an individual (s27(4)).

Where it applies at work

Under section 39, an employer must not victimise (s39(3) and (4)):

• a job applicant in the arrangements for deciding to whom to offer employment, the terms of an offer, or by not offering employment;
• an employee as to their terms, access to promotion, transfer, training or other benefits, by dismissing them, or by subjecting them to any other detriment.

For employers

• Treat a concern that a tool discriminates as an allegation under the Equality Act, and keep the response to it separate from decisions about the person who raised it.
• Check whether any later automated rating, shift allocation or flag about that person could be affected by their complaint, for example through notes, tags or manual overrides.
• Record the reasons for any decision affecting someone who has complained, so the reason can be shown.

For workers and candidates

Put a concern about a tool in writing, say what you think is unfair and which characteristic it relates to, and keep a copy. If you are then treated worse, note what happened and when. Our pages on the Equality Act and AI at work, whistleblowing and grievances and discipline cover related routes.

This page covers Great Britain and is general information on the law as at 2 November 2026, not legal advice.