Section 97 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 requires the addition of caste to the Equality Act 2010 by secondary legislation as ‘an aspect of’ the protected characteristic of race; but despite being mandated, no secondary legislation has been introduced and the addition of caste remains contested by some academics, civil society organizations and politicians who question the adequacy of any definition of caste, the estimates of the extent of caste discrimination, and whether legal protection against caste discrimination already exists under the Equality Act. In this article, we assess whether legal protection against caste discrimination is now assured following the Employment Tribunal judgement in September 2015 in Tirkey v Chandhok & Anor which held that discrimination on grounds of caste, depending on the facts, might be capable of falling within the scope of race as currently defined in the Equality Act. We argue that Tirkey is significant but not decisive and that it remains incumbent on government to extend the Equality Act to cover caste.

中文翻译：

---

确保在英国免受种姓歧视

2013 年企业和监管改革法案第 97 条要求通过二级立法将种姓添加到 2010 年平等法案，作为受保护的种族特征的“一个方面”；但是，尽管得到了授权，但并未引入任何二级立法，并且一些学者、民间社会组织和政治家仍然质疑种姓的增加，他们质疑任何种姓定义的充分性、种姓歧视程度的估计以及是否受到法律保护根据《平等法》，反对种姓歧视已经存在。在这篇文章中，我们评估了就业法庭于 2015 年 9 月在 Tirkey v Chandhok & Anor 案中作出的基于种姓歧视的判决之后，现在是否可以确保针对种姓歧视的法律保护，这取决于事实，可能属于《平等法》当前定义的种族范围。我们认为 Tirkey 很重要但不是决定性的，政府仍然有责任将平等法扩大到涵盖种姓。