difference between to treat less favourably and to put at a disadvantage

[register]

In section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 about direct discrimination the following expression is used

“A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”

However in section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning indirect discrimination a different expression is used which is the following:

“it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it”

Hence, I would like to know which difference there is between

“to treat less favourably”

and

“to put at a disadvantage”

[register]

I would like to know if the issue is about the meaning according to the English language of "treatment" and of "disadvantage" and the relation with the standard of proof
And, if it is necessary to establish direct discrimination to prove that we were refused a position because our race which could be difficult to prove because only the employer knows the real reason why he has not given us the position and to establish indirect discrimination it is enough to prove that a criterion, for example to speak a particular language even though it is not necessary to speak this language to do the work, has made less likely that we will be given the position

[ULA]

Direct discrimination would be about you being treated less favourable becasue of a protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people more than others because of a protected characterisitc.

[register]

Thank you for your explanation about the difference between direct and indirect discrimination

However, my question is about the meaning according to the English language of "treatment" and of "disadvantage" and the relation with the standard of proof
And, if it is necessary to establish direct discrimination to prove that we were refused a position because our race which could be difficult to prove because only the employer knows the real reason why he has not given us the position and to establish indirect discrimination it is enough to prove that the criterion to speak a particular language, which is not necessary to do the work, has made less likely that we will be given this position

[ULA]

The meaning has to be in terms of the legal definition contained within the Equality Act. So you need to decide whether you were directly discriminated against by being treated less favourably than other applicants for the position because of your race or it was indirect discrimination because of a policy, in this case the requirement to speak a particulary language, which would disadvantage some people more than others because of a protected characterisitc.

[register]

In the Equality Act 2010 it is made reference to being "treated less favourably" and to be "put at a disadvantage" but the meaning of these two terms is not explained and this raises the issue of the difference in standard of proof between direct and indirect discrimination as put forward in my previous posts

[register]

Maybe the terms "standard of proof" is not the correct term and a more appropriate term will be "what needs to be proven". For example in direct discrimination it is necessary to prove that we have not been given a position because of our race but for indirect discrimination it will be enough to prove that people in our groups were less likely to be given the position because a PCP in relation to our race

[ULA]

Exactly as you say for direct discrimination and for iindirect discrimination it is about being at a disadvantage due to a protected characteristic such as race when a particulary practice, policy or rule is applied in this case the requirement to speak a particular language.