Responding to discrimination

Case 9: The facts

Rajendra Chaudhary was not allowed entry onto a medical register that would have allowed him to apply for consultant status. He raised the issue with the British Medical Association (BMA), of which he was a member, and said that he thought it amounted to race discrimination.

The BMA refused to challenge his exclusion because the decision had been made by a professional body, and its policy was not to interfere with such decisions. Chaudhary brought a claim of race discrimination in the tribunal.

The ruling

The EAT upheld Chaudhary’s claim and held that the BMA’s refusal to support his case in such circumstances where discrimination was likely was itself discriminatory.

The EAT found that Chaudhary’s treatment had raised legitimate and troubling questions which needed answering, but the BMA had not evaluated his case. The BMA would have been aware of the very small number of consultants from minority ethnic communities, and of various reports indicating discrimination in the higher levels of the medical profession.

The EAT decision also makes it clear that the “requirement or condition” (now “provision, criterion or practice”) referred to in cases of indirect discrimination can be implied as well as express.

BMA v Chaudhary EAT/1351/01