On 12 December 2012, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that volunteer workers do not fall within the remit of the Equality Act 2010 or Council Directive 2000/78/ECC (the Framework Directive) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
The case concerned a woman who became a volunteer adviser for the Citizens Information Bureau in May 2006. There was no legal contract between the parties. The appellant claims that in May 2007 she was asked to cease to act as a volunteer in circumstances amounting to discrimination on grounds of disability.
She failed in her attempts to bring proceedings before the Employment Tribunal as the Court of Appeal held the Tribunal had no jurisdiction due to her status as a “volunteer” rather than an “employee”. As a volunteer, she fell outside the scope of protections against discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (now included in the Equality Act 2010) and the Framework Directive.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant claimed that volunteering constitutes an "occupation" and therefore falls within the Framework Directive. The effect of the directive would thus afford her protection under the principle in Marleasing. Alternatively, she claimed the principle contained in Article 19 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gave her a direct claim under the principle in Mangold v Helm. Furthermore, the appellant argued that if the Court had reasonable doubt, reference should be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
The UK Supreme Court held that the Framework Directive does not cover all activities i.e. employment, volunteering, etc. Article 3 (1) (a) clearly sets out the scope of the directive, therefore, not leaving it open to interpretation. The Court held that it was not the intention of this directive to cover volunteers in her position. In addition, preliminary reference was not needed because there was no scope for reasonable doubt.
Lord Mance, in delivering his judgment, specifically left open the question of whether unpaid work, in particular internships, may fall within the protections of discrimination laws.