522:
76:
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
63:
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". Mr James had to
81:
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
64:
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
55:, 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.
369:
115:
584:
467:
338:
537:
240:
77:
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?’
567:
481:
282:
148:
730:
720:
268:
425:
507:
410:
202:
552:
254:
362:
176:
108:
310:
725:
164:
355:
101:
65:
228:
322:
437:
298:
216:
591:
574:
557:
542:
527:
512:
457:
442:
415:
452:
673:
154:
134:
665:
657:
637:
494:
385:
131:
649:
398:
138:
497:
388:
347:
714:
677:
617:
612:
601:
334:
52:
705:
288:
272:
258:
206:
192:
93:
661:
653:
636:
Adams-Prassl, Jeremias; Binns, Reuben; Kelly-Lyth, Aislinn (1 August 2022).
702:
House of Lords James (Appellant) v. Eastleigh
Borough Council (Respondents)
669:
351:
97:
51:
2 AC 751 is a leading discrimination case relevant for
36:
28:
23:
706:https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1990/6.html
79:
586:Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College
363:
109:
8:
469:Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality
370:
356:
348:
242:Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v Khan
116:
102:
94:
20:
569:Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
483:Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2)
284:Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
150:Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd
86:Lord Griffiths and Lord Lowry dissented.
628:
523:Kontofunktionaerernes Forbund v Danfoss
269:Roma Rights Centre v Prague Immigration
426:R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry
538:Rinner-Kühn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG
508:Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
7:
638:"Directly Discriminatory Algorithms"
411:Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary
378:Sources on justifying discrimination
203:Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2)
553:Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
255:Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary
82:adversely affected in the same way.
14:
177:R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council
48:James v Eastleigh Borough Council
731:1990 in United Kingdom case law
721:United Kingdom labour case law
311:English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd
1:
229:Grant v South-West Trains Ltd
165:Horsey v Dyfed County Council
124:Direct discrimination cases
66:Sex Discrimination Act 1975
747:
598:
581:
564:
549:
534:
519:
504:
492:
478:
464:
449:
434:
422:
407:
395:
383:
331:
319:
307:
295:
279:
265:
251:
237:
225:
213:
199:
185:
173:
161:
145:
129:
323:Grainger plc v Nicholson
654:10.1111/1468-2230.12759
438:Sirdar v The Army Board
299:Coleman v Attridge Law
84:
642:The Modern Law Review
726:House of Lords cases
189:James v Eastleigh BC
24:James v Eastleigh BC
648:: 1468–2230.12759.
217:Smith v Safeway plc
232:ICR 449 (C-249/96)
608:
607:
495:Equality Act 2010
386:Equality Act 2010
345:
344:
132:Equality Act 2010
44:
43:
738:
682:
681:
633:
587:
570:
484:
470:
399:Etam plc v Rowan
372:
365:
358:
349:
285:
243:
151:
118:
111:
104:
95:
21:
746:
745:
741:
740:
739:
737:
736:
735:
711:
710:
699:
690:
685:
635:
634:
630:
626:
609:
604:
594:
585:
577:
568:
560:
545:
530:
515:
500:
488:
482:
474:
468:
460:
453:Kreil v Germany
445:
430:
418:
403:
391:
379:
376:
346:
341:
327:
315:
303:
302:(2008) C-303/06
291:
283:
275:
261:
247:
241:
233:
221:
209:
195:
181:
169:
157:
149:
141:
125:
122:
92:
74:
61:
17:
12:
11:
5:
744:
742:
734:
733:
728:
723:
713:
712:
709:
708:
703:
698:
697:External links
695:
694:
693:
689:
686:
684:
683:
627:
625:
622:
621:
620:
615:
606:
605:
599:
596:
595:
582:
579:
578:
565:
562:
561:
550:
547:
546:
535:
532:
531:
520:
517:
516:
505:
502:
501:
493:
490:
489:
479:
476:
475:
465:
462:
461:
450:
447:
446:
435:
432:
431:
423:
420:
419:
408:
405:
404:
396:
393:
392:
384:
381:
380:
377:
375:
374:
367:
360:
352:
343:
342:
332:
329:
328:
320:
317:
316:
308:
305:
304:
296:
293:
292:
280:
277:
276:
266:
263:
262:
252:
249:
248:
238:
235:
234:
226:
223:
222:
214:
211:
210:
200:
197:
196:
186:
183:
182:
174:
171:
170:
162:
159:
158:
146:
143:
142:
130:
127:
126:
123:
121:
120:
113:
106:
98:
91:
88:
73:
70:
60:
57:
42:
41:
38:
34:
33:
32:House of Lords
30:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
743:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
716:
707:
704:
701:
700:
696:
692:
691:
687:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
632:
629:
623:
619:
618:EU labour law
616:
614:
613:UK labour law
611:
610:
603:
602:UK labour law
597:
593:
589:
588:
580:
576:
572:
571:
563:
559:
555:
554:
548:
544:
540:
539:
533:
529:
525:
524:
518:
514:
510:
509:
503:
499:
496:
491:
486:
485:
477:
472:
471:
463:
459:
455:
454:
448:
444:
440:
439:
433:
428:
427:
421:
417:
413:
412:
406:
401:
400:
394:
390:
387:
382:
373:
368:
366:
361:
359:
354:
353:
350:
340:
336:
330:
325:
324:
318:
314:EWCA Civ 1421
313:
312:
306:
301:
300:
294:
290:
287:
286:
278:
274:
271:
270:
264:
260:
257:
256:
250:
245:
244:
236:
231:
230:
224:
219:
218:
212:
208:
205:
204:
198:
194:
191:
190:
184:
179:
178:
172:
167:
166:
160:
156:
153:
152:
144:
140:
136:
133:
128:
119:
114:
112:
107:
105:
100:
99:
96:
89:
87:
83:
78:
71:
69:
67:
58:
56:
54:
53:UK labour law
50:
49:
39:
35:
31:
27:
22:
19:
16:UK legal case
645:
641:
631:
583:
566:
551:
536:
521:
506:
480:
466:
451:
436:
424:
409:
397:
339:equality law
326:IRLR 4 (EAT)
321:
309:
297:
281:
267:
253:
239:
227:
215:
201:
188:
187:
175:
163:
147:
85:
80:
75:
68:section 29.
62:
47:
46:
45:
18:
715:Categories
688:References
498:s 19(2)(d)
678:251264321
662:0026-7961
335:UK labour
670:37065788
592:C-256/01
575:C-187/00
558:C-184/89
543:C-171/88
528:C-109/88
513:C-170/84
458:C-285/98
443:C-273/97
429:EWHC 860
416:C-222/84
402:IRLR 150
155:IRLR 322
90:See also
72:Judgment
40:2 AC 751
37:Citation
590:(2004)
573:(2003)
556:(1991)
541:(1989)
526:(1989)
511:(1984)
487:ICR 320
473:ICR 768
456:(2000)
441:(1999)
414:(1986)
289:UKSC 15
273:UKHL 55
259:UKHL 11
246:UKHL 48
220:ICR 868
207:UKHL 13
180:AC 1155
168:ICR 755
676:
668:
660:
193:UKHL 6
674:S2CID
624:Notes
389:Sch 9
135:ss 13
59:Facts
29:Court
666:PMID
658:ISSN
600:see
337:and
333:see
137:and
650:doi
139:136
717::
672:.
664:.
656:.
646:86
644:.
640:.
680:.
652::
371:e
364:t
357:v
117:e
110:t
103:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.