Proportionality and Employment Discrimination in the UK

被引:12
作者
Baker, Aaron [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Durham, Dept Law, Durham, England
关键词
D O I
10.1093/indlaw/dwn016
中图分类号
F24 [劳动经济];
学科分类号
020106 ; 020207 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
This paper argues that the justification defence in UK statutory indirect discrimination cases should incorporate proportionality as applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It first analyses the evolution of the UK approach to proportionality before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), when its primary influence was the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) applying EC equal treatment directives. This assessment shows that the UK judiciary was already adopting an approach to proportionality at odds with that of the ECJ and more resonant with that of the ECtHR. An evaluation of UK practice, however, including consideration of GMB v Allen, shows that UK judges do not apply the rigorous scrutiny required by either the ECJ or ECtHR approaches. The article considers the doctrine of proportionality as developed through the discrimination jurisprudence of the ECtHR and its application under the HRA. Given the increasing relevance of European Convention on Human Rights precedent under the HRA, the article evaluates how the influence of Strasbourg teaching can (and should) enhance the UK approach to the resolution of employment discrimination claims.
引用
收藏
页码:305 / 328
页数:24
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
Arai -Takahashi Y., 2002, MARGIN APPRECIATION
[2]  
Baker A., 2006, PL, V475, P488
[3]  
Baker Aaron, 2006, MOD LAW REV, V69, P714
[4]  
Craig P., 1999, ADM LAW, P556
[5]  
Craig P., 1999, ADM LAW, P546
[6]  
Craig P., 1999, ADM LAW, P561
[7]   Unfairness and health:: evidence from the Whitehall II study [J].
De Vogli, Roberto ;
Ferrie, Jane E. ;
Chandola, Tarani ;
Kivimaki, Mika ;
Marmot, Michael G. .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2007, 61 (06) :513-518
[8]  
Eissen M.-A., 1993, EUROPEAN SYSTEM PROT, P140
[9]  
Elliott M, 2001, CAMB LAW J, V60, P301
[10]  
Ellis E., 1999, PRINCIPLE PROPORTION, P170