Proportionality Check

Someone has asked you to justify a decision about a single-sex service, a facility, or an adjustment — and "we thought it was reasonable" is not going to be enough. Proportionality is the test a tribunal, a regulator or a determined challenger will actually apply. Most organisations reach for it after the challenge arrives, which is the one point at which it is too late to change the answer.

What it does. It runs in five steps. The first is the decision itself: you say what kind it is — facilities access, service access, a membership decision, a volunteer or staff role, an accommodation placement — which sets the framing for the legitimate-aim test, and you describe the actual restriction, because proportionality is judged on the specific measure rather than the general policy. You also say how soon the decision must be made, from same-day through to a scheduled review. From there the tool runs it through the four limbs from Bank Mellat — legitimate aim, rational connection, less intrusive means, and fair balance — and returns structured, legal-style reasoning for each, along with the strengths in your position, the concerns a challenger would press on, and an overall risk level.

What you get. A written reasoning record you can put in front of a board, attach to an EqIA, or hand to a solicitor. Not a verdict — the judgement stays yours — but the working shown, in the form the question will be asked in.

Who uses it. HR and people leads facing a specific request. Facilities and estates managers deciding provision. Anyone who has been asked "on what basis?" and wants a better answer than instinct.

Where it fits. The Facilities and Preventative Duty checks tend to surface the need for this. It pairs with Policy Foundations (the position you are reasoning from) and Defensibility (whether the record would hold up).