Victimisation for supporting discrimination complaint

Short answer

Yes. Victimising you because you supported another student’s discrimination complaint or gave evidence as a witness is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. You do not have to be the person who was discriminated against, and you do not need to share the protected characteristic involved. The protection covers people who help, support or give evidence in connection with someone else’s complaint.

The legal basis

Victimisation is defined in section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. A person victimises you if they subject you to a detriment because you have done, or they believe you have done or may do, a “protected act”.

Protected acts include:

1. Bringing proceedings under the Act.
2. Giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under the Act.
3. Doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with the Act.
4. Making an allegation that someone has contravened the Act.

Supporting another student’s discrimination complaint and acting as a witness fall squarely within categories 2 and 3. Giving evidence, providing a witness statement, accompanying the other student, or otherwise assisting with their complaint are all protected acts. Crucially, the protection is not limited to the person who was allegedly discriminated against, so the fact that the complaint concerns another student does not remove your protection.

In the education context, section 91 of the Equality Act 2010 specifically prohibits the responsible body of a further or higher education institution (and schools under the corresponding school provisions) from victimising students. The Equality and Human Rights Commission gives exactly this type of example: a finance officer refusing to process a student’s grant application because she supported another student’s race discrimination claim would amount to unlawful victimisation.

What you have to show

To establish victimisation you generally need three things:

1. A protected act. Here, supporting the complaint or giving evidence.

2. A detriment. This means being treated in a way that a reasonable person would regard as putting them at a disadvantage. Examples in an education setting could include unjustified disciplinary action, marks being affected, exclusion from opportunities, refusal to deal with your own requests, hostile treatment, or being subjected to unfounded counter-allegations.

3. A causal link. The detriment must be because of the protected act. The protected act does not have to be the only reason, but it must be a significant influence on the treatment. This is often the hardest element to prove, because the institution will usually offer an alternative, innocent explanation.

Good faith and its limits

There is one important limit. Under section 27(3), giving evidence or information, or making an allegation, is not protected if it is false and made in bad faith. In other words, if you knowingly give false evidence or make an allegation you know to be untrue, you lose the protection. Simply being mistaken, or the complaint ultimately not succeeding, does not remove your protection, provided you acted honestly. So genuine, honest support and evidence remains protected even if the underlying complaint fails.

Distinguishing victimisation from an ordinary explanation

Not every piece of adverse treatment after you support a complaint is victimisation. If, for example, you receive a lower mark, face a genuine academic penalty, or a request is refused for reasons that would have applied regardless of the complaint, that is not victimisation. The question is always whether the protected act was a real and effective cause of the treatment. It is worth thinking honestly about whether there is a legitimate, unrelated explanation, because the institution will look for one and a tribunal will scrutinise the timing and the surrounding facts.

Evidence that helps

If you are worried about victimisation, the practical strength of any complaint depends heavily on evidence. Useful material includes:

1. A clear record of what you did to support the other student and when, for example emails, a witness statement, or attendance at a hearing.

2. A timeline showing the adverse treatment and how closely it followed the protected act.

3. Any comments, emails or messages linking the treatment to your involvement, which are the most persuasive form of evidence.

4. Comparators, meaning evidence of how others in a similar position but who did not support a complaint were treated.

Practical steps

1. Keep contemporaneous notes and preserve all relevant communications now, before anything is deleted or lost.

2. Raise it internally first. Use the institution’s complaints or grievance procedure and state clearly that you believe you are being victimised for supporting another student’s discrimination complaint, referring to the Equality Act 2010. Institutions often resolve these matters once the legal risk is spelled out.

3. Consider the students’ union, an adviser or the disability or equality service if the institution has one, who can support you through the internal process.

4. If the internal route fails and you are at a university, you can escalate a complaint about the institution’s handling to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education once you have a Completion of Procedures letter. The OIA does not make binding legal findings but can recommend remedies.

5. Court action. Claims about victimisation by a further or higher education institution are generally brought in the County Court (not the employment tribunal, which deals with the employment field). There is normally a six month time limit from the act complained of for education discrimination and victimisation claims, so the timing is important and you should not delay if you are contemplating a claim. Court proceedings carry cost, delay and litigation risk, so this is usually a last resort after internal and any ombudsman-style routes.

What could change the answer

The analysis can shift depending on some facts worth clarifying: whether you are at a school, college or university, since the exact statutory provision and the escalation route differ; what precisely you did to support the complaint; what the detriment is and how soon after your involvement it occurred; whether there is a plausible innocent explanation for the treatment; and whether anything you said or provided could be characterised as knowingly false. If you can set out the specific detriment you have experienced and the sequence of events, the strength of a victimisation argument can be assessed much more precisely.