23

My daughter was asked to leave a pet shop as she was unaccompanied by an adult and was under 14. She was in there with the intention of making a genuine purchase and there is no way she would have been doing anything that would be considered disruptive.

Is it against UK equality laws for a company to have a policy like this? Certainly I can see it being so if it was, for example, a policy of no one over a certain age, or of a particular race, but I’m wondering if some kind of duty of care or health and safety consideration could trump this when it comes to younger people. In which case, my question is why 14? What makes it different for someone who is only 13 years and 364 days old versus someone who is 14 years and one day old?

Darren
  • 693
  • 5
  • 14
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – feetwet Aug 09 '21 at 20:59
  • 1
    Just to address the last sentence - you obviously don't become a different person on your 14th, or any other birthday, but if you restrict anything by age, you have to draw a line somewhere, and there will be a day when you cross that line. Most things in the UK draw that line at 16 or 18, but that's not universal; films have age restrictions at 12 and 15, for instance. – IMSoP Aug 11 '21 at 09:35

5 Answers5

46

I’ve managed to answer my own question. Age discrimination legislation only applies to over 18s:

It’s only discrimination if a trader or service provider treats you unfairly because of:

  • age - if you’re 18 or over
  • disability
  • gender reassignment
  • pregnancy and maternity
  • race
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation

Source

Darren
  • 693
  • 5
  • 14
  • 1
    Amusingly, I've just been wondering how it's not discrimination for e.g. a night club to limit entry to only people over 20 or 24 years of age. (Or any age limit that's higher than whatever the legal limitations for serving alcohol to minors is.) – ilkkachu Aug 09 '21 at 17:49
  • @ilkkachu it seems that in the uk at least, that would be illegal. Do you have examples? – Darren Aug 09 '21 at 17:58
  • 2
    Discrimination by age is fairly accepted by usage of the law. Elderly get cheaper tickets, personalized service and often other perks. All as it should be,if you ask me. – Stian Aug 09 '21 at 18:16
  • 1
    @StianYttervik women get into bars for free, and get cheap drinks. – RonJohn Aug 09 '21 at 19:54
  • 3
    @Darren there’s a pub near to me where it’s over 21 only. But that’s not the only case of discrimination. In my city 19s and under get cheaper bus tickets, elderly people get free bus tickets, you have to be 24 to drive a bus (21 a large lorry), you can’t join the army when you’re older than 36. The list goes on. – Tim Aug 10 '21 at 08:30
  • @Darren As I understand the law, there's no blanket ban on discrimination. If you have a good reason to require a certain characteristic it might be legal to enforce it (if you run a brothel you might not want to hire a male prostitute if your customers are only interested in females). Whether that works for pubs I have no idea. – Voo Aug 10 '21 at 10:33
  • @Voo that’s called an occupational requirement. It’s highly unlikely a pub could claim a specific sex (/gender) was an occupational requirement. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-502-3493?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) – Tim Aug 11 '21 at 07:09
  • @Tim Obviously that particular exemption doesn't work, but the point was that there's no blanket ban on discrimination even for those protected categories and that there are exceptions. – Voo Aug 11 '21 at 09:03
  • 1
    Age is an exception to blanket non-discrimination: (2)If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13 – Ben Aug 11 '21 at 14:38
  • 1
    at least in the US discrimination is subject to several levels of scrutiny, with age being subject to rational basis (the lowest level) and race being subject to strict scrutiny (the highest level). I imagine there's something similar in the UK, even beyond exemptions for age -- for example many jobs are objectively unsafe for a pregnant person to be working. – eps Aug 11 '21 at 15:13
43

My daughter was asked to leave a pet shop as she was unaccompanied by an adult and was under 14. She was in there with the intention of making a genuine purchase...

It may be because the shopkeeper didn't want to commit a criminal offence under s.11(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006:

A person commits an offence if he sells an animal to a person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be under the age of 16 years.

ETA in response to comments...

It's not that uncommon for some shops to impose a blanket ban or a "maximum number at any one time" policy for unaccompanied children when, for example, they have been subjected to antisocial behaviour or lost significant amounts of stock through shoplifting. I cannot find any law that make this type of policy unlawful.

Also, in the UK, when shops "exhibit goods for sale" it's an invitation to treat and they are not obliged to sell anything to anyone - unless it discriminates against a protected characteristic (which in this scenario does not as appear to be the case according the OP's answer).

  • 2
    Then the policy would be no under 16s, no? – Darren Aug 08 '21 at 14:41
  • 2
    @Darren Many kids that look 17 year old are really under 16. If you look at them you have reasonable cause to believe they are under 16. So the shop could have a policy "Don't sell to anyone looking under 21 unless they prove they are 16. " – gnasher729 Aug 08 '21 at 16:16
  • @gnasher729 but the policy is no under-14s. – Darren Aug 08 '21 at 21:35
  • 3
    @Darren Maybe she misunderstood what the shopkeeper said, or he didn't exactly remember the minimum age from the law. But apparently it was correct to deny her the purchase - given she actually wanted to buy an animal, and not only food or a pet house. – PMF Aug 09 '21 at 05:39
  • 3
    @PMF no, she was buying accessories, and I don’t think the conversation even went so far as to establish what they were there for. And it’s definitely 14 as I’ve since confirmed it with the shop myself. – Darren Aug 09 '21 at 06:16
  • 1
    Then at least the Act quoted above doesn't apply. I don't know about the UK, but normally in europe children are allowed to buy things (and hence rightfully create an (oral) contract) with their pocket money or when it is obvious that they where sent for something. – PMF Aug 09 '21 at 06:33
  • 1
    Even if she were planning on buying an animal, she might have just been window shopping, with the intent of coming back later with a parent to make the actual purchase. The quoted law is just about purchasing, not browsing. – Barmar Aug 09 '21 at 14:43
  • @Barmar the question said "She was in there with the intention of making a genuine purchase" - hence the quoted law. The OP's comment clarified that "she was buying accessories" - hence the ETA to say that in the UK a shopkeeper is not legally obliged to serve anyone and can refuse entry to children (and anyone else come to that) unless they fall foul of the Equality Act 2010 for some reason. –  Aug 09 '21 at 14:55
  • Regarding "invitation to treat", it would appear to me to be "false advertising" if you're advertising a product for a certain price but then changing your mind when a buyer actually shows up with that amount of money. – Nike Dattani Aug 09 '21 at 15:04
  • @RockApe But the storekeeper couldn't know what her intent was. – Barmar Aug 09 '21 at 15:05
  • @Barmar - her intent is not the issue - it's what the shopkeeper is allowed to do, and not allowed to do, that's important here. –  Aug 09 '21 at 15:15
  • That's my point. He's not allowed to kick her out of the store just because he's prohibited from selling an animal to her. She's allowed to browse, she's allowed to purchase non-animals. – Barmar Aug 09 '21 at 15:17
  • @Barmar But the shopkeeper is allowed to "kick her out" so she is not allowed to browse or buy non-animal goods if she is excluded under a lawfully-compliant policy - which seems to be the case here. Also, my answer referring to the 2006 Act said "It may be because..." before the OP's clarification and my ETA. –  Aug 09 '21 at 15:32
  • What does "ETA" mean in this context? – Barmar Aug 09 '21 at 15:33
  • @Barmar - Edited To Add –  Aug 09 '21 at 15:36
  • 2
    @Barmar "He's not allowed to kick her out of the store just because he's prohibited from selling an animal to her. She's allowed to browse, she's allowed to purchase non-animals" - the shop is still private property and the child is not in a protected category, so the shop keeper can legally require her to leave the premises. –  Aug 10 '21 at 04:33
  • @Moo That's the original question, isn't it -- is a shopkeeper allowed to kick a child out of the store just because of their age? – Barmar Aug 10 '21 at 04:37
2

Given the existence of laws mandating "discrimination against" young customers in the case of products and services deemed to be for adults only, from alcohol and tobacco to various forms of "adult entertainment," it would seem a bit absurd to assert that it is illegal for stores to discriminate against customers on the basis of being too young.

Mason Wheeler
  • 363
  • 2
  • 10
  • 1
    But the question is about the law. It's conceivable that a law against discrimination could be phrased in a way which would make it illegal to deny sale of anything other than the items which are illegal to sell. – grovkin Aug 10 '21 at 04:46
  • 1
    Another answer here suggests that it would in fact be illegal for stores to discriminate based on age, but only when discriminating among people over the age of 18. An 18+ pet shop would be legal, a 21+ pet shop might not be. – Nuclear Hoagie Aug 10 '21 at 14:26
2

TL;DR: Shopkeepers can exclude children.

In the UK it is is illegal to discriminate against anyone because of age, but there is a big exception.

Section 13(2)

If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

There are also a large number of exemptions and exceptions.

In addition the Secretary of State may make exceptions by order (powers in section 196). The government also produces guidance:

In particular for small businesses, the guidance says:

You can still:

If you provide age based services:

− Advertise, market and sell products and services to younger or older people as niche marketing, provided you don’t refuse the service to anyone outside your target group.

If you run a shop:

− Exclude or restrict the number of children in your shop (or hotel or restaurant), as children are not protected by the ban.

− Offer discounts to people based on their age. (See Part 9(b) of the overview guide for more information www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/equalities/equality-actpublications/equality-act-guidance/).

− Refuse to sell age-restricted products to someone who looks below the minimum legal age and who does not have any ID

It seems clear from this that the shopkeeper can exclude children.

Ben
  • 169
  • 5
-4

OCR enforces the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in HHS-funded programs and activities. Under the Age Act, recipients may not exclude, deny, or limit services to, or otherwise discriminate against, persons on the basis of age.

Source

Ryan M
  • 10,274
  • 2
  • 45
  • 63
Tonni islam
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
    Is this an American law? The question was specifically about the UK, but useful to have an answer for other jurisdictions. – Darren Aug 09 '21 at 10:52
  • 10
    Although possibly correct, this does not appear to answer the question. UK petshops are not HSS programs or activities. –  Aug 09 '21 at 10:55
  • 1
    @Darren - it appears to be. "HHS" is an acronym for "Health and Human Services", and OCR is an acronym for the Office for Civil Rights, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Aug 10 '21 at 15:02
  • 1
    That appears to apply specifically to discrimination against people for being over a certain age, not for being under a specific age. Most U.S. discrimination laws that I'm aware of target that type of discrimination. – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Aug 10 '21 at 22:00