Disabled volunteers can be discriminated against

28 January 2011 by

X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau [2011] EWCA Civ 28 – Read judgment

The Court of Appeal has ruled that disabled people are not protected by domestic or European legislation against discrimination when they undertake voluntary work.

In this decision the specific question was whether volunteers at Citizens Advice Bureaus are protected from disability discrimination. X, the anonymised claimant, argued that CAB had terminated her role as a volunteer adviser because she had a disability. She claimed that:

  1. There was a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when read with Directive 2000/78/EEC, which establishes a framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;
  2. The Directive itself gave her enforceable rights not to be discriminated against due to her disability.

The Domestic Law Argument

The Disability Act 1995 has been replaced by the Equality Act 2010, but Section 4 of the 1995 Act was in force at the time when X’s role was terminated. X argued that section 4(1) (a) applied to her case. It provides:

(1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person–

(a)    in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining to whom he should offer employment.

X argued that her case fell within this provision, because obtaining a voluntary position at CAB was very helpful in obtaining a permanent employed post.

The Court rejected this argument. The purpose of offering volunteer positions was to provide advice to clients of CAB, not to determine who should be offered employment or improve the employment prospects of the volunteers.

The European Law Argument

In order for her case to fall within the Directive’s scope, X had to show that her situation had been one of employment or occupation. X argued that she was in an occupation, relying on a definition derived from case law including European Court of Justice decisions:

Occupation is the carrying out of a real and genuine activity which is more than marginal in its impact upon the person or entity for whom such activity is carried out and which is not carried out for remuneration or under any contract.

X argued that such an interpretation was necessary to assist disabled persons in securing voluntary work, which helps integration into the labour market.

CAB argued that such an interpretation would be very vague, creating uncertainty; that if volunteers were intended to be within the Directive’s scope, it would have explicitly included them; when the Directive was a draft and reached the stage of going before the Council of Ministers for approval, amendments including explicit reference to voluntary work were rejected. Occupation therefore was not intended to include the voluntary sector.

The Court did not accept X’s arguments:

First, it is far from obvious that it would be thought desirable to include volunteers within the scope of the discrimination legislation relating to employment. As I have indicated, there is a genuine debate about that (Elias LJ, paragraph 60).

Further, the drafting of the Directive would have made express reference to voluntary work if it was intended to apply to it. Occupation, within the meaning of the Directive, was meant to refer to a “class or category of jobs” (Elias LJ, paragraph 62).

Consequently, no protection for disabled volunteers against discrimination in their voluntary activities was found to exist on the basis of discrimination legislation.

The current economic climate will inevitably lead to more people undertaking volunteer work in the hope of securing an elusive job at some point in the future. As such, this decision will affect a large, and growing, group of people. The case has already generated controversy, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who intervened in the case on the side of X, saying in a Guardian article:

Given that many employees begin their working life as volunteers, which provides them with valuable experience which they can use as a step up to paid employment, it seems unfair that certain groups of people can legally be denied this experience. If this case does go to the supreme court, the commission will hope to have our views heard.

So the case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. If so, it will be interesting to see whether the court decides to extend protection to volunteers, or simply agrees that if the legislators had intended such protection, it have been explicitly included in the Disability Discrimination Act.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. Chelsea Alexander says:

    P.S. Further concerns are that we had approached the local volunteering agency for assistance on these matters and their priority seemed to be providing and assisting the charity with developing and implementing policies along “best practice guidelines”(which have been draconically implemented without consultation) and NOT to advise volunteers on their rights! So it begs to question where volunteers (disabled,vulnerable or otherwise) go for support or help?

  2. Chelsea Alexander says:

    I have recently resigned my position from a local “charity” for very much the same reasons. I am currently looking at ways in which the disabled volunteers might gain some protection. I personally feel it is disgusting that our country can easily deny rights to volunteers especially when people are now required to contribute to the bigger society, which might I add doesn’t seem to want to give them rights commensurate to these responsibilities! Also what about our servicemen and women who return from war zones injured and suffering disabilities and their only option is to return incrementally to mainstream employment through volunteering. Is this the kind of thanks they get!!!! I am disgusted that our government and the legislature can so easily deny such fundemental rights. Is there reasoning based upon social policy? What an irony that is!! This is something close to my heart and I hope the Supreme court make the right and just decision. Do not deny the vunerable in society the most basic and fundemental of human rights. Alternatively, leaving volunteers without the benefit of these fundemental rights could give rise to a legal justification enabling THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO WORK a right to a refusal to contribute to the bigger society in this way. I am currently trying to fight for additional rights together with and on behalf of around 20 volunteers at a local charity who are suffering this same type of injustice and would welcome any further help and advice from outside organisations.

  3. Would this finding be applicable to the magistracy or to appointment as such? A year or two ago a totally blind person was appointed. Reasons were offered that his disability would not affect his performance. Without in any way being critical there are those who would opine that it would. Appointments Committees are very aware that any form of discrimination in selection based on sexual orientation, ethnic, religious, or any physical disability is frowned upon. In view of the fact that being a unique voluntary position it cannot possibly lead to full time position that particular argument of course fails. A practical example could be a J.P. who through misfortune loses the ability to take notes and is therefore considered unable to meet the competencies required. Any opinions ……..?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: