Journal of Discrimination and the Law, (2009) Vol. 10, p 101.
\n(4) There is Liability even if the Discriminator belongs to the Same Protected Group<\/p>\n
EA 2010, s.24, codified: R (on the application of A) v Governing Body of JFS[2009] UKSC 15, Lord Clarke ([152] \u00a7i):<\/p>\n
I do not see that the identity of the discriminator is of any real relevance \u2026. There is certainly nothing in the language or the context of section 1 of the [RRA 1976] or in its statutory purpose to limit the section in that way.
\n4 DIRECT DISCRIMINATION AND SEGREGATION \u2013 RACE ONLY<\/p>\n
Section 13(5), Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) provides that for race only, less favourable treatment includes \u201csegregating\u201d a person from others. In the White Paper preceding the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976), Racial Discrimination, the Government adopted the observation of the Race Relations Board that:<\/p>\n
\u201c[F]or a time segregation may represent a form of accommodation acceptable to all, but if it hardens into patterns, tensions and conflicts will occur when pressures to change that pattern arise.\u201d (Cmnd.6234.[62].)<\/p>\n
Brown v Board of Education 347 US 483 (1954); Pel Ltd v Modgill (FTATU v Modgill) [1980] IRLR 142 (EAT)
\n5 DEFENCES TO DIRECT DISCRIMINATION<\/p>\n
(1) The GOR Defence
\nEA 2010, Sch.9, para.1<\/p>\n
An employer may enjoy an exemption:<\/p>\n
\u201cby applying in relation to work a requirement to have a particular protected characteristic, if [it] shows that, having regard to the nature or context of the work\u2013<\/p>\n
(a) it is an occupational requirement,<\/p>\n
(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and<\/p>\n
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it)\u201d*<\/p>\n
*The words in parenthesis do not apply to sex discrimination: Sch.9, para.1(4)<\/p>\n
Race and sex \u2013 preferences not to have a protected characteristic Amnesty International v Ahmed, [2009] IRLR 884 (EAT).<\/p>\n
(2) The \u2018Religious Conscience\u2019 Defence \u2013 Sch 9, para.2<\/p>\n
Permits discrimination on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, and of being married or in a civil partnership, by an employer for the purposes of an<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Journal of Discrimination and the Law, (2009) Vol. 10, p 101. (4) There is Liability even if the Discriminator belongs to the Same Protected Group EA 2010, s.24, codified: R (on the application of A) v Governing Body of JFS[2009] Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94875"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94875\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}