In the British law, none of the anti-discrimination laws includes the wording of associated discrimination. The government has confirmed in various public government documents that direct associative discrimination is prohibited by the respective laws in the case of racial discrimination, as well as on grounds of sexual orientation and religion. However, this is not the case for characteristics such as gender and age. This inconsistency is justified by the fact that the wording of the respective laws, which list each protected characteristic individually, did not allow any room for interpretation in favour of associated discrimination.

The UK Equality Act 2010 makes no direct reference to the concept of associated discrimination. However, the possibility of associated discrimination is mentioned in a legislative commentary on direct discrimination. Thus, if a case were to come to court under the Equality Act, it would be possible to claim associated discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability and age. This is based on Article 13(1) of the Equality Act.

The case of Coleman v Attridge introduced associated discrimination on grounds of disability into UK case law. However, this extension has not yet been extended to other protected characteristics.

In the case of Kulikaoskas v MacDuff Shellfish, it was decided that associated discrimination because of the sex is not condemned in British law. The claimant was dismissed at the same time as his pregnant wife and subsequently brought a claim against it to court. He claimed that he had been discriminated against by his employer on the grounds of pregnancy and thus on the grounds of his wife’s sex. He referred to the Coleman case. However, the case was dismissed.

In the case of Lee v McArthur and Ashers Baking Company Limited, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decided in 2016 to extend the scope of associated discrimination not only because of association with a person who bears a protected characteristic, but on the basis of association with a community whose members bear a protected characteristic. However, this extension did not apply in the present case.

Mr Lee, a homosexual man, ordered a cake from a bakery to be decorated with the Sesame Street characters Ernie and Bert and the slogan: “Support Gay Marriage”. However, the Christian owners of the bakery refused to provide the cake because they were against the introduction of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. The court found that discrimination can exist not only in relation to the characteristics of an individual, but also on the basis of proximity to a community (e.g. the LGBTQIA+ community). In the case of Mr Lee, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland found that there was no associated discrimination based on his proximity to the LGBTIQA+ community, as the bakery employed and served gay people. The owners stated that they would also have refused the job to a heterosexual person without this connection. It is a matter of exercising one’s freedom of expression, which includes the right to refuse to express an opinion that one does not share. In addition, the Supreme Court stated that the relationship was not close enough, which is why the extension of the scope by the appellate court does not apply.