Search:
Computing and Library Services - delivering an inspiring information environment

Indirect discrimination, justification and proportionality - are UK claimants at a disadvantage?

Lane, Jackie and Ingleby, Rachel (2017) Indirect discrimination, justification and proportionality - are UK claimants at a disadvantage? Industrial Law Journal. ISSN 0305-9332 (In Press)

[img] PDF - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (396kB)

Abstract

The minimum standard of scrutiny for the justification defence in the context of indirect discrimination was first set out by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1986). This established that an indirectly discriminatory measure is justified if it meets a real need and is appropriate and necessary for meeting that need. The UK courts’ approach to the concept of proportionality within the context of this justification defence may nevertheless have distinct disadvantages for claimants in comparison with their EU counterparts.
The approach of the UK courts is assessed here by considering the development of case law in this area, both in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in the higher courts. When compared to the approach taken by the CJEU, it becomes apparent that there is a significant difference between the ways in which UK courts and the CJEU interpret the justification defence. Findings show that the approach of the UK courts significantly disadvantages claimants, leading to the conclusion that the UK may not be fully compliant with EU law.
To remedy this defect, it is suggested that there are at least two practical alternative solutions. The first is that Parliament could incorporate a strict necessity test into the Equality Act. Alternatively, the courts could develop a ‘robust approach’ to proportionality. The outcomes of a large number of employment law cases are examined here, appearing to suggest that the latter approach may have greater benefits for claimants than those associated with adopting a strict necessity test, although it is unlikely that either will find favour with Parliament or the courts.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: K Law > KD England and Wales
Schools: Huddersfield Business School
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Jacqueline Lane
Date Deposited: 16 May 2017 14:26
Last Modified: 21 Oct 2017 14:12
URI: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/31893

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Repository Staff Only: item control page

View Item View Item

University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Copyright and Disclaimer All rights reserved ©