James v Eastleigh BC

Last updated

James v Eastleigh BC
CourtHouse of Lords
Citation[1990] 2 AC 751

James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law, concerning the test for discrimination. It rejected that motive was in any way a part of the test for discrimination. This precludes the legality of positive discrimination, or any other kind of discrimination which may involve a benign motive.

Contents

Facts

Eastleigh BC offered free swimming pool access to pensioners, while non-pensioners had to pay for access. Because men and women become pensioners at different ages, "pensionable age" was "a shorthand expression which refers to the age of 60 in a woman and to the age of 65 in a man". [1] Mr James had to pay for the swimming pool, but Mrs James did not because he was below pensionable age. He claimed there was direct discrimination (not indirect, whereby there would probably be a successful justification). Mr James claimed that this was contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 section 29.

Judgment

Lord Bridge, Lord Ackner and Lord Goff held that this was discrimination on grounds of sex under SDA 1975 s 1(1), because it followed the state pensionable and that was itself discriminatory. Lord Goff that Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson VC’s desire test was not appropriate. One need not focus at all on intention or motive, because one can simply ask, ‘would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?’

I have to stress, however, that the ‘but for’ test is not appropriate for cases of indirect discrimination under s 1(1)(b), because there may be indirect discrimination against persons of one sex under that subsection, although a (proportionately smaller) group of persons of the opposite sex is adversely affected in the same way.

Lord Griffiths and Lord Lowry dissented.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Adams-Prassl, Jeremias; Binns, Reuben; Kelly-Lyth, Aislinn (1 August 2022). "Directly Discriminatory Algorithms". The Modern Law Review. 86: 1468–2230.12759. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12759. ISSN   0026-7961. PMID   37065788. S2CID   251264321.

Related Research Articles

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by the Supreme Court of Canada in the second quarter of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-discrimination law</span> Legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people

Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.

United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.

"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc</i> Case in English tort law

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53 is a case in English tort law that established the principle that claims under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher must include a requirement that the damage be foreseeable; it also suggested that Rylands was a sub-set of nuisance rather than an independent tort, a debate eventually laid to rest in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 and (1999) C-167/97 is a landmark case in United Kingdom labour law and European labour law on the qualifying period of work before an employee accrues unfair dismissal rights. It was held by the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice that a two-year qualifying period had a disparate impact on women given that significantly fewer women worked long enough to be protected by the unfair dismissal law, but that the government could, at that point in the 1990s, succeed in an objective justification of increasing recruitment by employers.

<i>Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary</i>

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11 is a UK labour law case concerning the appropriate test for determining who is a comparator.

<i>Ladele v London Borough of Islington</i> United Kingdom labour law case

Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.

Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1986) C-170/84, ECLI:EU:C:1986:204, is an EU labour law case which set out the test for objective justification for indirect discrimination.

<i>Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board</i>

Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1987] IRLR 26 is a UK labour law case concerning the justifications for unequal pay.

<i>Strathclyde RC v Wallace</i>

Strathclyde RC v Wallace [1998] 1 WLR 259 is a UK labour law case concerning indirect discrimination and equal pay.

<i>R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport</i>

R v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55 is a UK asylum case concerning Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The case concerned itself with the lawfulness of actions taken by British immigration personnel stationed in Prague. The outcome found that discriminatory actions were undertaken against Roma seeking to travel to the UK.

<i>Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry</i>

Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2006] UKHL 19 is a UK labour law case concerning sex and age discrimination. It also contains the test for indirect discrimination, based on statistical comparisons.

Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (1990) C-262/88 is an EU labour law and UK labour law case concerning sex discrimination in pensions.

R v Birmingham City Council [1989] AC 1155 is a discrimination case, relevant for UK labour law case, concerning the appropriate comparisons that should be made.

Jones v University of Manchester [1993] ICR 474 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law, concerning the test for justification of indirect discrimination.

Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15 is a UK labour law case, concerning discrimination under what is now the Equality Act 2010.

<i>Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797 was heard in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court on 17 June 2003 before Lord Justice Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lord Justice Rix.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37 was heard by the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords on 26 May 2005 before Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, and Lord Carswell.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights lists the prohibited grounds against which discrimination in illegal. The text states that

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.