• Take every discrimination complaint seriously the moment it is raised, whether it arrives as an offhand comment or a formal grievance. How it is handled in the first few days shapes whether it stays manageable or escalates. 

• Under the Equality Act 2010, once an employee establishes facts from which a tribunal could conclude discrimination occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove otherwise. A thorough, well-documented process is what separates a defensible outcome from a costly one. 

• The window for bringing a claim is about to widen substantially. The time limit is set to increase from three months less one day to six months less one day for claims arising on or after 1 October 2026, giving employees considerably longer to act and employers considerably less margin for a slow or inconsistent response. 

Discrimination complaints carry more risk than most other workplace issues, both to the person affected and to the organisation handling it. They also tend to be judged less on the underlying facts than on how the organisation responded once it knew. This guide sets out what a fair, defensible process actually looks like, and the legal context that makes getting it right increasingly important. 

What counts as a discrimination complaint 

The Equality Act 2010 protects nine characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. A complaint can involve direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and it does not need to use any of those words to count. Employees frequently describe discrimination in ordinary language, as unfairness, favouritism or simply feeling excluded, and treating the substance of what is said as more important than the label it arrives under is the first test of a good process. 

Victimisation deserves particular attention. Anyone who raises a complaint in good faith, supports someone else’s complaint, or gives evidence in an investigation is protected from being treated badly as a result. That protection needs to be actively managed, not just assumed, for as long as the complaint and its aftermath are live. 

The legal backdrop, briefly 

This is general information, not legal advice, and organisations should take their own legal counsel on specific cases. 

The burden of proof under section 136 works in two stages. First, the employee needs to point to facts from which a tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an explanation, that discrimination took place. If they do, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it did not happen, or that there was a non-discriminatory reason for what occurred. In practice, this means the quality of an organisation’s investigation and its paper trail often decide the outcome, regardless of the strength of the original complaint. 

Employers are also vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by their staff during employment, whether or not senior management knew about it. The main defence is being able to show that reasonable steps were taken to prevent it, which is why policies, training and a credible complaints process are not just good practice but a genuine legal safeguard. 

That defence has been tightened further. Since 26 October 2024, the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 places a proactive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment specifically, enforceable by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with tribunals able to uplift compensation by up to 25% where the duty was breached in a successful claim. Further tightening, to an “all reasonable steps” standard, is expected around the same October 2026 changes to tribunal time limits, so this is not settled ground. 

Handling a complaint, step by step 

1. Listen and record without minimising. Whether the complaint is a passing comment or a written grievance, note what was said, when, and by whom, and avoid the instinct to reassure someone that it was probably not what it sounded like. That judgement belongs to the process, not the first conversation. 

2. Choose the right route quickly. A single, ambiguous incident between two people who need to keep working together may be suited to an early conversation or mediation. Allegations that are serious, contested, or involve a senior member of staff need investigation, and a neutral assessment can help decide which before positions harden. 

3. Protect against victimisation from day one. Make clear, and mean it, that raising a concern will not count against anyone, and keep a watching brief on how the complainant and any witnesses are treated for the duration of the process and afterwards. 

4. Appoint an investigator with genuine impartiality. Where the allegation involves a senior leader, a protected characteristic, or where trust in the organisation’s own process is already in question, independence needs to be real and visible, not just technically true. 

5. Follow a fair, evidenced process through to a reasoned outcome. Put the allegations to the person concerned, hear their response, weigh the evidence on the balance of probabilities, and set out clear findings and reasoning rather than a bare conclusion. 

6. Act on the outcome and follow up. A finding that goes nowhere undermines the process as much as a weak investigation does. Check in with the complainant afterwards, and use what the case revealed to close any gaps in policy, training or management practice. 

Common mistakes that turn a complaint into a claim 

• Treating an informal or loosely worded comment as not a real complaint, and only taking it seriously once it is put in writing. 

• Letting the investigation drift, so that memories fade, evidence goes stale, and the delay itself becomes a further source of grievance. 

• Using an investigator who reports to, or is close to, one of the parties involved, even where the process itself is technically sound. 

• Failing to actively monitor for victimisation once a complaint is raised, rather than simply stating a policy against it. 

• Reaching an outcome but not visibly acting on it, which signals to the wider workforce that raising a concern does not change anything. 

Building prevention into the culture 

The proactive duty to prevent sexual harassment is a reminder that handling complaints well is no longer enough on its own. Employers are expected to identify risk before an incident occurs, through regular training, clear policies, accessible reporting channels, and leadership that models the standard it expects. Organisations that only think about discrimination and harassment when a complaint lands are, by definition, always acting after the fact. 

Getting it right 

A discrimination complaint tests an organisation’s process, its documentation and its judgement all at once, and the margin for error is narrowing as tribunal time limits lengthen and the legal duty on employers grows more proactive. CMP delivers independent investigation into discrimination and harassment complaints, independently chaired disciplinary hearings and appeals where a documented outcome is needed, and training that helps organisations meet their preventative duty rather than simply respond once something has gone wrong. 

You can read more about our approach and experience, or get in touch to talk through a current situation.