Who you can turn away: membership decisions and the Equality Act 2010

Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to associations. An association for these purposes is one with at least twenty-five members, where admission is regulated by rules and involves a process of selection. That definition captures the overwhelming majority of private members' clubs, and it is not avoided by calling the club private.

The provisions bite at three points: deciding who to admit, how members and associates are treated once admitted, and how they are removed. Guests are covered too.

The relevant characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Discrimination can be direct, indirect, by association or by perception, and harassment and victimisation are separately prohibited.

Indirect discrimination is the one that catches well-run clubs. A rule that appears neutral but puts a group at a particular disadvantage is unlawful unless it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. A requirement for two proposers who are existing members, in a club whose existing membership is homogeneous, is a textbook example worth examining honestly.

An association may restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic. That is what permits a women's club, or a club for members of a particular religion. The exception is genuinely available, but it is narrower than operators often assume.

It permits restriction by reference to that characteristic. It does not license discrimination on other grounds within the group, and it does not survive if the restriction is not actually the club's defining basis. A club that describes itself as a women's club but admits men as full members in practice will struggle to rely on it.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments is owed to disabled people generally, not only to a member who has asked. It is anticipatory, which means the club is expected to think ahead about barriers rather than react when someone complains.

For clubs in listed or historic buildings this needs care rather than despair. Reasonableness takes account of practicability and cost, and listed building consent is a real constraint. What is not reasonable is having never considered the question. A documented access audit, with decisions and reasons recorded, is both better practice and better evidence.

Traditional election procedures often allow rejection without reasons. That protects confidentiality, and it is lawful in itself. The difficulty is evidential: if a rejected applicant brings a claim and the club can point to no criteria and no record, it is poorly placed to show that a protected characteristic played no part.

A practical middle course keeps the confidentiality of individual votes while recording the criteria applied and monitoring outcomes over time. If admissions data shows a consistent pattern against one group, the club should want to know before a tribunal tells it.

• Write down the membership criteria, even if the final decision remains discretionary.
• Test each rule for indirect effect, particularly proposer and seconder requirements.
• Carry out an access audit and record the reasoning where adjustments are not made.
• Train the committee on what may not be discussed in an election meeting.
• Monitor admission and expulsion outcomes by characteristic, at aggregate level.