Hello, my name is***** am a qualified lawyer and I will be assisting you with your question today. What do you mean by 'see', do you mean to be physically present together?
No, not at all. The discrimination must be as a result of that other person's actions and there is certainly no requirement for the two to be present together or to have seen each other. For example, two shift workers who work on opposite shifts and never cross paths. One leaves discriminatory notes about the other in the staff room and goes home. The victim comes along later and sees these notes - discrimination has occurred even though the two were not even near each other at the time. So to answer your quesiton it is certainly not a requirement for the two people to be physically present for discrimination to occur.
I hope this has answered your query. I would be grateful if you could please take a second to leave a positive rating (3, 4 or 5 stars) as that is an important part of our process and recognises the time I have spent assisting you. If you need me to clarify anything before you go - please get back to me on here and I will assist further as best as I can. Thank you
Are you asking about a particular service?
when you say 'A' person do you mean the person suffering the discrimination or the service provider?
For discrimination in the provision of services, the person must be requiring the service in question to be covered. So strictly speaking if the person is not trying to use or already using the service in question they may not necessarily be protected.
yes everyone is protected. Not sure why you think an English person does not have a protected characteristic - the characteristic is 'race', not 'being foreign'. So an English person can be discriminated just in the same way as someone from a different country. Let's say a Polish person was racially abusive towards an English person - that can be discriminatory just in the same way as if it was the other way around. Hope this clarifies?
A comparator is needed in both direct and indirect discrimination but it does not need to be an actual comparator, a hypothetical one can be used too
Not a real one but you can give an example of what a person who did not have the protected characteristic is likely to have been treated like in these circumstances.
No you do not, it is obvious that there will not always be factual comparators and that should not affect someone's ability to claim discrimination so a hypothetical comparator is also acceptable
Many thanks and all the best