Is 'first come, first served' for holiday requests discriminatory?

Not automatically, but it can be. If the rule consistently puts parents or carers at a disadvantage and you cannot show it is a proportionate way to run the business, it may be indirect discrimination under the Equality Act.

If you use booking order to settle clashing holiday requests, this one's relevant to you – which covers most small businesses.

First come, first served feels even-handed because the rule treats everyone the same. But section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 covers indirect discrimination: a rule that applies equally to everyone can still be unlawful if it puts a protected group at a particular disadvantage and you cannot show it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The problem with first come, first served is the pattern it creates over time. Parents are tied to school holidays. People without school-age children can request the popular weeks earlier and more freely. Women are still the majority of primary carers. Run the rule for a few years and parents lose out more often than non-parents, and women more often than men. That's exactly the pattern indirect discrimination law is built to catch.

The rule isn't automatically unlawful. You can defend it if it's genuinely a proportionate way to run the business, and in a small team with no real alternative you might be able to. But "we didn't mean to" is no defence. A steadier approach combines rotation across years so the same people don't lose every August, some weight given to caring responsibilities, and a written reason for every refusal. None of that is required by law; it's what makes the decision stand up if a complaint lands.

Further reading

  • Managing clashing holiday requests

    When several people want the same weeks off, the law decides more of it than fairness does: notice deadlines, the duty to let people take their leave, and the discrimination risk in 'first come, first served'.