Glass Ceiling or Unlawful Discrimination? Is There Really a Difference?

/in /by

Many professionals talk about a ‘glass ceiling’ but never consider using words like ‘discrimination’. However, the frustration is incredibly common in cities like London: employees are highly qualified and consistently perform well, yet they keep seeing others advance while their own careers stand still. In some circumstances, this glass ceiling could be unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, and what is commonly experienced at a senior level could be classed as workplace discrimination. 

What is the ‘Glass Ceiling’?

The ‘glass ceiling’ describes an invisible barrier that stops certain groups, often women, ethnic minorities, older workers or those from less privileged backgrounds, from progressing into the most senior and best‑paid roles, despite having the qualifications and track record to do so. They may reach middle or even upper management, but any promotion beyond a certain point becomes noticeably harder compared with others.

At this stage, the signs are often subtle: certain professionals are not chosen for stretch assignments, not invited to key meetings, or not brought up when new senior posts are discussed. Any feedback may be vague, being told ‘you are not quite the right fit’, without concrete, objective criteria. Over time, this pattern can become a clear sign that there is a ceiling above you that others do not face.

What is Discrimination at Work?

Discrimination in employment law is more specific. It is unlawful for an employer to treat you less favourably or create a policy that particularly disadvantages you, because of a protected characteristic such as your gender, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. At a senior level, discrimination can take many forms, including:

  • Being repeatedly passed over for promotion while colleagues without your protected characteristic progress.
  • Exclusion from meetings, projects or decision‑making that are crucial to future career development.
  • Biased performance reviews linked to stereotypes or assumptions, rather than your actual results.
  • Unequal pay and bonuses compared with colleagues in similar roles, without a legitimate explanation.

Importantly, discrimination in the workplace does not have to be overt. It can be driven by unconscious bias, ingrained culture or seemingly ‘neutral’ processes that consistently disadvantage certain groups. The law focuses on the impact of comments and behaviour, not just on whether anyone intended to discriminate.

When the Glass Ceiling Becomes a Legal Problem

Not every experience of the glass ceiling will be considered discriminatory behaviour, but many will, particularly where there is a repeated pattern and clear comparators. The shift from a cultural issue to a legal one often becomes apparent when you look at the bigger picture. Common signs include:

  • Repeated exclusion from opportunities – You consistently miss out on projects, roles or leadership programmes that are given to colleagues of a different sex, race or age, despite you being equally or more qualified.
  • Stalled promotion with inconsistent explanations – The goalpost moves every time, first it might be ‘budget’, then it is ‘structure’, then ‘leadership style’, but others with similar experience move up regardless.
  • Patterned outcomes – Data shows that senior roles, higher pay grades or equity stakes are dominated by a particular group, with people who share your protected characteristic missing out on opportunities.
  • Link to protected characteristics – Comments, assumptions or decisions are linked, whether explicitly or subtly, to gender, race, parental status, disability, age or another protected characteristic, rather than objective performance.

When these signs are present, you might not be dealing with a glass ceiling, but with unlawful discrimination at work that could justify a discrimination at work claim.

Examples of How Exclusion Can Cross the Line

To understand the difference in practical terms, it can be useful to look at some typical scenarios senior employees describe:

  • A senior woman at a city firm repeatedly sees less-experienced male colleagues selected for pitches and leadership roles, while she is praised but sidelined into ‘supporting’ positions. Over time, this directly affects promotion prospects and pay.
  • A senior leader from a minority ethnic background notices that they are constantly left out of networking events and key discussions where decisions are made, and feedback focuses on ‘style’ rather than performance.
  • An older manager finds that, following organisational change, they are gradually stripped of responsibilities, excluded from new strategic projects and passed over for roles in favour of younger colleagues, despite consistently strong performance reviews.

On the surface, these situations are often explained as ‘cultural fit’ or ‘business needs‘. However, when the pattern is persistent, affects your career, and correlates with a protected characteristic, it may constitute evidence of discrimination under employment law.

How to Assess Your Situation

If you think the glass ceiling you are experiencing may actually be discrimination at work, it is helpful to ask yourself the following:

What Is the Pattern?

How many promotion rounds, pay reviews, or project allocations have gone against you? Is there a clear timeline of when things changed, for example, after returning from maternity leave, raising concerns, or a change in leadership?

Who Are Your Comparators?

Who is progressing in the way you reasonably expected to? How similar are their roles, responsibilities, experience and performance to yours?

Is there a Link to a Protected Characteristic?

Do the people who progress share characteristics you do not have, such as being male, younger, or from a particular background? Are there comments, behaviours or assumptions that appear to be related to your protected characteristic?

What Explanations Have You Been Given?

Are the reasons for your lack of progression specific, evidence‑based and consistent, or vague and constantly shifting? Have you been given clear, realistic steps that would lead to promotion or higher pay if achieved?

You do not need to reach a final legal conclusion yourself. However, answering these questions will help you determine whether it is worth seeking specialist advice about a potential discrimination claim at work.

How Damian McCarthy can Help

Understanding the difference between a glass ceiling and unlawful discrimination is key, as it influences your options going forward, your strategy at an Employment Tribunal, and potential remedies. Damian McCarthy is an experienced employment law specialist with a strong track record in complex discrimination and whistleblowing disputes, including cases involving senior executives. He understands how bias and unequal treatment operate at senior level and how to turn those experiences into clear legal arguments where appropriate. 

Whether you are currently exploring your position, considering a discrimination at work claim, or wanting to negotiate an exit on fair terms, tailored legal advice can make a significant difference to both outcome and confidence. Contact Damian McCarthy today to discuss your situation in confidence and explore your options with a specialist who understands the different types of discrimination. If you are concerned that a glass ceiling in your workplace may in fact be discrimination at work, you do not have to navigate this alone. 

Top Employment Lawyer

/in , , /by

Have you been discriminated in the workplace and are seeking advice from a top employment lawyer in London? Damian McCarthy is a top employment lawyer with over 20 years of experience, dealing with cases of all sizes and providing an extremely high standard of service. So if you need a top employment lawyer in London to fight your case against discrimination, contact Damian McCarthy.

The Equality Act 2010 provides protection for employees if they are suffering from discrimination in the workplace. This is usually due to an individual having a ‘protected characteristic’, whether it be their gender, race or sexual orientation. As an experienced, top employment lawyer, Damian McCarthy can represent you if you have suffered from discrimination, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, bullying or harassment. If you have been discriminated and would like a top employment lawyer to get the justice you deserve, then visit our ‘Discrimination at Work’ page to find out more.

With over 20 years of experience in the employment law industry, Damian has dealt with many high-profile cases, working hard to achieve the outcome that was deserved. Damian is fully committed to each and every case and will always strive to achieve the best possible outcome.

Damian can adapt his approach to the case that he’s serving, whether it be an aggressive or charming approach. One of Damian’s most recognised cases was when he represented the television presenter Moira Stuart, against the BBC, for the case regarding her dismissal due to age discrimination. He achieved outstanding results in this case and went on to receive nationwide attention from the media.

If you are seeking a top employment lawyer, Damian McCarthy is the lawyer you can trust. For more information, call Damian on 020 8263 6080 or fill in the form on our Contact page. Just enter all necessary information into the mandatory fields and he’ll look to get back to you as soon as possible.

Groundbreaking whistleblowing case to consider “public interests” test

/in , , /by

 

court of appeals

Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chesterton Humberts) and another v Nurmohamed, case was heard by the Court of Appeal. The case holds great importance for future whistleblowing cases.

The appeal was heard in the Royal Courts of Justice on 8 June. In case of terms in considering when a disclosure is “in the public interest” this case is vital, for claimants seeking to establish that a disclosure is protected this is a key challenge.

 

The cases brings wide attention and importance, as will adhere to the new whistleblowing laws that were introduced in June 2013. The changes were intended to prevent potential claimants misusing whistleblowing protection according to the disclosure of matters to their own contract of employment. These changes in the laws were that to be protected, a worker must have reasonably believed that he or she was making the disclosure “in the public interest”

 

These changes to the law have opened wide debates to the scope of the phrase “in the public interests”. The Chesterton Global ltd case is the first appeal cases to draw on the debate in court.

Looking at the hearing in terms of impact to UK employment law, it is hard to argue against this being the biggest case that the Court of Appeal hears in 2017.

 

Whistleblowing charity Public Concern at Work intervened in the case and was able to make representations before the Court of Appeal. In the case Mr Nurmohamed, a manager with a large estate agent, raised concerns about discrepancies with how his commission under a new commissioning structure was calculated.

He contended that the discrepancies were deliberate and that the accounts were being manipulated by management to the benefit of shareholders, thereby reducing the amount that he and more than 100 other managers would receive by way of commission. The employer consequently dismissed Mr Nurmohamed.

 

He brought an unfair dismissal claim in the employment tribunal, including an allegation that the dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made a protected disclosure, and that he had been subjected to detriments for making a protected disclosure. Both the employment tribunal and EAT accepted that he reasonably believed that the disclosure was “in the public interest”. They were satisfied that, even though Mr Nurmohamed was primarily thinking about his own commission, secondary the group of 100 or so managers, were also affected by the issue, who in this case were the “section of the public”.

 

In the appeal on 8 June, the Court of Appeal heard from the employer’s representatives that the tribunal was wrong to concentrate on the number of workers affected. Instead the employment tribunal should have looked more closely at the nature of the disclosure, and not be distracted by the number of people affected. According to the employer’s lawyers, Mr Nurmohamed’s concerns were more alike to a collective grievance, rather than something that was of wider “public interest”. However, Mr Nurmohamed’s representatives maintained that a disclosure should count as being “in the public interest” if it raises matters that are more than purely personal, and the issues are of “some importance” to at least one other person.

 

They argued that a narrow “public interest” test could have the “chilling effect” of discouraging workers from making disclosures in the first place. Mr Nurmohamed’s case was heavily built around the blatant assumption that he reasonably believed that he was making the disclosure “in the public interest”, given the roll on effect on other parties e.g. numerous managers, financial impact of millions at hand, and his assertion that there had been measured wrongdoing.

 

Public Concern at Work, in its submissions at the end of the hearing, highlighted that whistleblowing laws encourage workers to speak out over wrongdoing in the workplace, and whistleblowers need to know that they will be protected when they raise distresses. According to the charity, employers’ whistleblowing policies are conveyed to encourage workers to speak out whenever they see wrongdoing, and policies do not typically tell workers to raise concerns only if they are “in the public interest”. It is significant that Public Concern at Work has intervened. Whistleblowing protection could be harshly restricted if the test for public concern is too strict.

 

Judgement was reserved at the end of the Court of Appeal hearing. It is likely to be a few months before the final judgment is delivered. The Court of Appeal judgment will be binding on employment tribunals and the EAT.