LECTURE 10

LECTURE 10DISCRIMINATION (2)

Indirect Discrimination
1. INTRODUCTION

‘Aged 18-30’

Price v Civil Service Commission (No. 2) [1978] IRLR 3 (IT); Jones v University of Manchester [1993] ICR 474 (CA)

‘Local experience’
Meer v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1988] IRLR 399 (CA)

‘Good command of English’
Perera v Civil Service Commission (no. 2) [1983] ICR 428 (CA)

‘Management experience’
Falkirk Council v Whyte [1997] IRLR 560 (EAT)

‘Last-in first-out’ redundancy selection

Brook v Haringey LB [1992] IRLR 478 (EAT); Hall v Shorts Missile Systems [1996] NI 214, (NICA)
2 HISTORY

Ian Gilmour, Standing Committee B (22 April 1975), col. 36.):

…we do not know what it means. Secondly we do not think the Government knows what it means; and, thirdly, if we did know what it meant, we do not think that we would like it, but we cannot be sure.
Griggs v Duke Power 401 US 424 (1971)

Burger, CJ, who invokes Aesop’s fable of the stork and the fox (429-432):

Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job-seeker be taken into account. It has – to resort again to the fable – provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use.

The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an

Leave a Reply