In X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau, the Supreme Court has confirmed that a volunteer without a contract was not protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) or the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive. Since the Equality Act 2010 contains substantially the same provisions as the DDA, the conclusions of this case are widely applicable.

X was a volunteer at the CAB for 4-5 hours per week. She had signed a volunteer agreement which stated that it was ‘binding in honour only...and not a contract of employment or legally binding.’ After a year, the CAB asked X to leave, and she brought a claim under the DDA alleging that she had been dismissed because she was disabled. The tribunal, EAT, Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court all rejected her claim, finding that the DDA gave no protection to volunteers. ‘Employment’ in the DDA is defined as employment under a contract of service, apprenticeship or a contract personally to perform work. As X did not have a contract with the CAB, she was not ‘employed’ and therefore not protected by the DDA. The Supreme Court also emphasised that there is no general principle of equality under EU law. Protection is given only in very specific contexts, and it was clear that the EU Directive underlying the DDA had not been intended to apply to volunteers. The Supreme Court also therefore refused to make a reference to the ECJ.

This decision will be welcomed by volunteer organisations. However, it is important to note that some volunteers may be protected by anti-discrimination legislation, for example, volunteers engaged under a contract. In addition, many work placements are covered by the legislation. Employers who wish to ensure that volunteers do not have full employment rights should clarify at the outset that there is no legally binding contract in place.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.