Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forum Home
Law Firms
Wiki
Events
Deadlines
Members
Leaderboards
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Premium Database
TCLA Premium:
Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="trainee4u" data-source="post: 214965" data-attributes="member: 30779"><p>Interesting, from an equality law perspective.</p><p></p><p>Under EA 2010 positive action is legal <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/159" target="_blank">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/159</a></p><p></p><p>I saw recently for example that the Law Society provide eight-week (!) paid internships under the 10000 Black Interns scheme.</p><p></p><p>This I understand is legal on the basis that it's "only an internship", and the actual "employment" is open to all, so this falls within legitimate activity, and</p><p></p><p><em>s 159</em></p><p><em>(1) [The Law Society] reasonably thinks that—</em></p><p><em>(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or</em></p><p><em>(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.</em></p><p></p><p>So the "10000 Black Interns" program is legal for law, because s 159(1)(b) is met.</p><p></p><p>However, the "no graduates" rule is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of age. It has the effect of saying "we don't want people aged over 21/22 on our VS", as the number of undergraduates over 22 would be vanishingly small, so it would be indirect age discrimination, if</p><p></p><p>"it puts [people who] share the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with [people who do not"</p><p></p><p>As this is indirect rather than direct discrimination, the test is "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."</p><p></p><p>So I think there would be two tests:</p><p></p><p>1) does the exclusion from the VS put mature candidates at a particular disadvantage - they could argue TC route is still open, and therefore "not a particular disadvantage", and perhaps point to relative prospects of success via two routes</p><p>2) is it a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.</p><p></p><p>I suppose they might argue that it's somehow proportionate in that graduates need to be tested more thoroughly, but it seems unlikely to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="trainee4u, post: 214965, member: 30779"] Interesting, from an equality law perspective. Under EA 2010 positive action is legal [URL]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/159[/URL] I saw recently for example that the Law Society provide eight-week (!) paid internships under the 10000 Black Interns scheme. This I understand is legal on the basis that it's "only an internship", and the actual "employment" is open to all, so this falls within legitimate activity, and [I]s 159 (1) [The Law Society] reasonably thinks that— (a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or (b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.[/I] So the "10000 Black Interns" program is legal for law, because s 159(1)(b) is met. However, the "no graduates" rule is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of age. It has the effect of saying "we don't want people aged over 21/22 on our VS", as the number of undergraduates over 22 would be vanishingly small, so it would be indirect age discrimination, if "it puts [people who] share the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with [people who do not" As this is indirect rather than direct discrimination, the test is "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." So I think there would be two tests: 1) does the exclusion from the VS put mature candidates at a particular disadvantage - they could argue TC route is still open, and therefore "not a particular disadvantage", and perhaps point to relative prospects of success via two routes 2) is it a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I suppose they might argue that it's somehow proportionate in that graduates need to be tested more thoroughly, but it seems unlikely to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
