University admissions discrimination claim

Short answer

Yes. A university admissions decision can amount to unlawful discrimination on grounds of disability or pregnancy and maternity, but only where the specific facts satisfy the legal tests under the Equality Act 2010. The mere fact that an applicant is disabled or pregnant and was rejected does not, by itself, prove discrimination. What matters is why the decision was taken, how the admissions arrangements operated, and whether any duty owed to the applicant was breached.

How the Equality Act applies to admissions

Universities in England and Wales are covered by the further and higher education provisions of the Equality Act 2010, in particular section 91. The “responsible body” of a university must not discriminate against a person in three admissions-related respects: in the arrangements it makes for deciding who is offered admission, in the terms on which it offers admission, and by not admitting the person or by the way it deals with them once admission is under consideration.

Both disability and pregnancy and maternity are protected characteristics, so discrimination in admissions on either ground can in principle be unlawful. In addition, the responsible body owes a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants, and a specific duty not to subject a disabled person to certain disability-related detriments.

The key point is that being rejected is not enough on its own. You need to identify the particular form of discrimination and show that the facts fit it.

Disability discrimination in admissions

There are several distinct legal routes, and they turn on different facts.

Direct discrimination arises where the university treats a disabled applicant less favourably than it treats or would treat a non-disabled applicant, because of disability. The comparator must be someone whose circumstances are not materially different except for the disability. This is difficult to justify and, aside from limited exceptions, cannot be defended by arguing it was reasonable.

Discrimination arising from disability arises where the university treats the applicant unfavourably because of something connected with their disability (for example a gap in academic history caused by illness, or lower predicted grades linked to a condition), rather than because of the disability itself. This form of discrimination can be lawful if the university can objectively justify the treatment as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It also only applies where the university knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the applicant was disabled.

Indirect discrimination arises where the university applies a provision, criterion or practice that applies to everyone but puts disabled applicants at a particular disadvantage, and puts the individual applicant at that disadvantage. Again, the university may defend this if it can show the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example might be a rigid entry requirement or selection test that disadvantages people with a particular impairment.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments is often the most practically important route. If the admissions process, or a physical feature, or the absence of an auxiliary aid, places a disabled applicant at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled applicants, the university must take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. This can include adjusting how interviews or assessments are conducted, allowing extra time, providing accessible formats, or considering the effect of a disability on prior attainment. There is no justification defence to a failure to make a reasonable adjustment; the only questions are whether the duty arose and whether the step was reasonable.

Harassment and victimisation are also possible but less common in an admissions context.

The concept of disability itself has a legal definition: a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Some conditions are treated as a disability from diagnosis. Whether the applicant meets this definition can itself be a live issue.

Pregnancy and maternity discrimination in admissions

The university must not discriminate in admissions because of pregnancy or because of a pregnancy-related illness. For example, rejecting an applicant, or applying different terms, because she is pregnant, or because of absence or reduced attainment connected to pregnancy, could amount to unlawful discrimination.

The protection for pregnancy and maternity is not identical to the employment context, and outside employment the position can be more complex. In practice, unfavourable treatment of an applicant connected to pregnancy will often be analysed as sex discrimination or under the education provisions, and the exact framing depends on the facts and timing. Some pregnancy-related treatment can be justified in narrow circumstances, but treatment amounting to less favourable treatment because of pregnancy will be very hard for a university to defend.

Ordinary explanations that are not discrimination

Before concluding that a rejection is unlawful, it is important to consider whether there is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Universities make competitive selection decisions on academic merit, references, personal statements, admissions tests, interview performance, meeting published entry requirements, availability of places, and professional or fitness-to-practise requirements on certain courses.

A rejection that reflects genuinely lower academic attainment, failure to meet a lawful entry requirement, or a stronger competing field is not discrimination merely because the applicant happens to be disabled or pregnant. Discrimination arises only where the protected characteristic, or something connected to it, played a part in the treatment in one of the ways described above, or where a required adjustment was not made. A refusal to make an adjustment, an unexplained departure from published criteria, or a decision that closely follows disclosure of a disability or pregnancy may point towards discrimination, but each needs to be tested against the facts.

Some courses that lead to professional registration have fitness-to-practise or health requirements. Applying such requirements can be lawful, but they must still be applied in a non-discriminatory way and with reasonable adjustments where the duty arises.

What facts and evidence matter

To assess whether you have a viable claim, the following are important: whether and when the university knew about the disability or pregnancy; the published entry criteria and admissions policy; the actual reasons given for the decision; how comparable applicants were treated; whether adjustments were requested or obviously needed; the timing of the decision relative to any disclosure; and any correspondence, feedback, or interview notes.

You can ask the university for feedback on the decision. A subject access request under data protection law can be a useful way to obtain the internal notes, scores and reasoning behind an admissions decision, which is often the best evidence of whether the protected characteristic influenced the outcome.

Practical next steps

1. Request written feedback on why the application was unsuccessful, and ask specifically how any disclosed disability or pregnancy and any adjustment request were taken into account.

2. Gather your documents: the application, entry requirements, offer or rejection communications, any disclosure of disability or pregnancy, and any adjustment requests.

3. Consider a subject access request to obtain the internal admissions records and scoring.

4. Use the university’s internal complaints and admissions appeal procedure. Universities usually have a formal route to challenge admissions decisions, and exhausting it is normally required before external steps.

5. If the internal process does not resolve matters, an unsuccessful applicant to higher education generally cannot use the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, because the OIA deals with complaints by enrolled students rather than rejected applicants. That makes the internal route and any legal claim more important.

6. A discrimination claim under the education provisions of the Equality Act is brought in the County Court, not the Employment Tribunal, and there is a strict time limit of six months from the act complained of, subject to the court’s discretion to extend. Because the limit is short, identify the relevant date early and do not let it slip while pursuing internal complaints.

7. The Equality Advisory and Support Service and Citizens Advice can provide initial guidance, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission publishes detailed technical guidance on further and higher education that explains how these duties operate in practice.

Bottom line

An admissions decision can amount to disability or pregnancy discrimination, and universities are squarely within the reach of the Equality Act 2010 for how they handle applications. Whether a particular rejection is unlawful depends on the mechanism relied on, what the university knew, whether any reasonable adjustment was needed and made, and whether any less favourable or unfavourable treatment can be justified where justification is available. The most productive first move is usually to obtain the reasons and the underlying records, then test them against the entry criteria and the specific legal tests, while keeping the six-month County Court time limit firmly in view.