| Jones v University of Manchester | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Ralph Gibson LJ |
| Keywords | |
| Indirect discrimination, justification | |
 | This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations .(May 2023) |
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.
A 44-year-old woman claimed she was discriminated against on grounds of sex. She was turned down for a job limited to graduates aged 27 to 35. She got her degree as a mature student. The University argued that the limit was justified because careers advisers should be ‘not too far removed in age from the students’ and because they wanted to achieve a spread in age groups, which were 63, 62, 54, 47, 45 and 42 at the time.
Tribunal held the pool for comparison was men and women who got degrees when they were aged 25 or over. There were fewer women under age 35 that got degrees than men. Therefore Ms Jones won. It said that the university also lost on justification. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held (following Perera on the absolute bar approach) that the pool had been artificially restricted, and on justification it had ‘effectively dismissed the matters relied upon by [the University] once it was demonstrated that they were not essential.’
Ralph Gibson LJ held that the Tribunal was entitled to find the age requirement discriminatory so long as proof of disparate impact was shown. However, the correct pool for comparison was all male and female graduates with necessary experience. So the Employment Appeal Tribunal was upheld. Further, the Tribunal was right to construe ‘justifiable’ in Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 1(1)(b)(ii), to mean an objective balance between the condition’s discriminatory effect the employer’s reasonable needs. But the Tribunal had gone about the balancing exercise wrongly. He said one must look both at the quantitative effect and the qualitative effect (how many are adversely affected and how bad is the effect is).
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.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The result was that employers could not be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims were based on decisions made by the employer 180 days or more before the claim. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (C-256/01) is a European Union law case concerning the right of men and women to equal pay for work of equal value under Article 141 of the Treaty of the European Community.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought.
Pearce v Mayfield Secondary School Governing Body and Advocate General for Scotland v MacDonald [2003] UKHL 34; [2003] IRLR 512 is a UK labour law case concerning sexuality and sex discrimination. It was decided before the new Employment Equality Regulations 2003.
O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA Civ 283 is a UK labour law case concerning disability discrimination.
Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc [2007] ICR 469 is a UK labour law case, concerning sex discrimination and equal pay. It was the largest claim to be lodged in the United Kingdom, but was rejected in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal.
Weaver v National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education [1988] ICR 599 EAT is a UK labour law case, concerning racial discrimination.
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.
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.
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.
Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority (1992) C-127/92 is an EU labour law, relevant for UK labour law, that concerns the justification test for unequal pay between men and women.
Strathclyde RC v Wallace [1998] 1 WLR 259 is a UK labour law case concerning indirect discrimination and equal pay.
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.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (1994) C-32/93 is a UK labour law and EU labour law case, concerning discrimination against a pregnant woman. It held that no comparator is necessary to establish discrimination against a pregnant woman. It was unusual in that Carol Louise Webb, the applicant, was represented throughout by a community law centre, the Hillingdon Legal Resource Centre (HLRC), later renamed the Hillingdon Law Centre, the only time that a British law centre case went to the European Court of Justice. The law centre's in-house barrister Michael Shrimpton argued the case before the Industrial Tribunal at London North in February 1988. He was also junior counsel to the late John Melville Williams QC in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and, by then in private practice, appeared at the compensation hearing in 1999. The case was one of the longest-running in British legal history.
Hampson v Department of Education and Science [1989] ICR 179 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for justification of discrimination.
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
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.
Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10 is a UK labour law case, concerning equal pay and comparators.
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33 is a UK labour law case, concerning race discrimination and the burden of proof.