69:
176:, section 1(1)(b)(ii), to mean an objective balance between the conditionâs discriminatory effect the employerâs 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).
612:
150:
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 ânot too far removed in age from
171:
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
154:
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
159:
on the absolute bar approach) that the pool had been artificially restricted, and on justification it had âeffectively dismissed the matters relied upon by once it was demonstrated that they were not essential.â
751:
98:
736:
459:
205:
674:
557:
428:
627:
330:
657:
571:
372:
238:
746:
741:
358:
515:
597:
500:
292:
642:
344:
452:
266:
198:
120:
400:
151:
the studentsâ and because they wanted to achieve a spread in age groups, which were 63, 62, 54, 47, 45 and 42 at the time.
254:
445:
191:
81:
173:
91:
85:
77:
318:
102:
412:
527:
388:
306:
681:
664:
647:
632:
617:
602:
547:
532:
505:
542:
278:
168:
45:
244:
224:
584:
475:
221:
488:
228:
587:
478:
437:
730:
707:
702:
691:
424:
139:
378:
362:
348:
296:
282:
183:
142:, concerning the test for justification of indirect discrimination.
441:
187:
62:
138:
ICR 474 is a leading discrimination case relevant for
51:
41:
36:
28:
23:
90:but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
676:Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College
453:
199:
8:
559:Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality
460:
446:
438:
332:Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v Khan
206:
192:
184:
20:
752:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
659:Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
573:Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2)
374:Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
240:Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd
121:Learn how and when to remove this message
737:History of the University of Manchester
613:Kontofunktionaerernes Forbund v Danfoss
359:Roma Rights Centre v Prague Immigration
516:R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry
57:Indirect discrimination, justification
628:Rinner-Kßhn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG
598:Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
7:
501:Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary
468:Sources on justifying discrimination
293:Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2)
643:Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
345:Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary
172:right to construe âjustifiableâ in
14:
267:R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council
135:Jones v University of Manchester
67:
24:Jones v University of Manchester
747:1993 in United Kingdom case law
742:United Kingdom labour case law
401:English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd
1:
319:Grant v South-West Trains Ltd
255:Horsey v Dyfed County Council
214:Direct discrimination cases
174:Sex Discrimination Act 1975
768:
688:
671:
654:
639:
624:
609:
594:
582:
568:
554:
539:
524:
512:
497:
485:
473:
421:
409:
397:
385:
369:
355:
341:
327:
315:
303:
289:
275:
263:
251:
235:
219:
56:
413:Grainger plc v Nicholson
76:This article includes a
528:Sirdar v The Army Board
105:more precise citations.
389:Coleman v Attridge Law
16:British labor law case
279:James v Eastleigh BC
307:Smith v Safeway plc
322:ICR 449 (C-249/96)
78:list of references
698:
697:
585:Equality Act 2010
476:Equality Act 2010
435:
434:
222:Equality Act 2010
131:
130:
123:
61:
60:
759:
677:
660:
574:
560:
489:Etam plc v Rowan
462:
455:
448:
439:
375:
333:
241:
208:
201:
194:
185:
126:
119:
115:
112:
106:
101:this article by
92:inline citations
71:
70:
63:
37:Court membership
21:
767:
766:
762:
761:
760:
758:
757:
756:
727:
726:
721:
716:
699:
694:
684:
675:
667:
658:
650:
635:
620:
605:
590:
578:
572:
564:
558:
550:
543:Kreil v Germany
535:
520:
508:
493:
481:
469:
466:
436:
431:
417:
405:
393:
392:(2008) C-303/06
381:
373:
365:
351:
337:
331:
323:
311:
299:
285:
271:
259:
247:
239:
231:
215:
212:
182:
169:Ralph Gibson LJ
166:
148:
127:
116:
110:
107:
96:
82:related reading
72:
68:
46:Ralph Gibson LJ
32:Court of Appeal
17:
12:
11:
5:
765:
763:
755:
754:
749:
744:
739:
729:
728:
725:
724:
720:
717:
715:
712:
711:
710:
705:
696:
695:
689:
686:
685:
672:
669:
668:
655:
652:
651:
640:
637:
636:
625:
622:
621:
610:
607:
606:
595:
592:
591:
583:
580:
579:
569:
566:
565:
555:
552:
551:
540:
537:
536:
525:
522:
521:
513:
510:
509:
498:
495:
494:
486:
483:
482:
474:
471:
470:
467:
465:
464:
457:
450:
442:
433:
432:
422:
419:
418:
410:
407:
406:
398:
395:
394:
386:
383:
382:
370:
367:
366:
356:
353:
352:
342:
339:
338:
328:
325:
324:
316:
313:
312:
304:
301:
300:
290:
287:
286:
276:
273:
272:
264:
261:
260:
252:
249:
248:
236:
233:
232:
220:
217:
216:
213:
211:
210:
203:
196:
188:
181:
178:
165:
162:
147:
144:
129:
128:
86:external links
75:
73:
66:
59:
58:
54:
53:
49:
48:
43:
39:
38:
34:
33:
30:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
764:
753:
750:
748:
745:
743:
740:
738:
735:
734:
732:
723:
722:
718:
713:
709:
708:EU labour law
706:
704:
703:UK labour law
701:
700:
693:
692:UK labour law
687:
683:
679:
678:
670:
666:
662:
661:
653:
649:
645:
644:
638:
634:
630:
629:
623:
619:
615:
614:
608:
604:
600:
599:
593:
589:
586:
581:
576:
575:
567:
562:
561:
553:
549:
545:
544:
538:
534:
530:
529:
523:
518:
517:
511:
507:
503:
502:
496:
491:
490:
484:
480:
477:
472:
463:
458:
456:
451:
449:
444:
443:
440:
430:
426:
420:
415:
414:
408:
404:EWCA Civ 1421
403:
402:
396:
391:
390:
384:
380:
377:
376:
368:
364:
361:
360:
354:
350:
347:
346:
340:
335:
334:
326:
321:
320:
314:
309:
308:
302:
298:
295:
294:
288:
284:
281:
280:
274:
269:
268:
262:
257:
256:
250:
246:
243:
242:
234:
230:
226:
223:
218:
209:
204:
202:
197:
195:
190:
189:
186:
179:
177:
175:
170:
163:
161:
158:
152:
145:
143:
141:
140:UK labour law
137:
136:
125:
122:
114:
104:
100:
94:
93:
87:
83:
79:
74:
65:
64:
55:
50:
47:
44:
42:Judge sitting
40:
35:
31:
27:
22:
19:
673:
656:
641:
626:
611:
596:
570:
556:
541:
526:
514:
499:
487:
429:equality law
416:IRLR 4 (EAT)
411:
399:
387:
371:
357:
343:
329:
317:
305:
291:
277:
265:
253:
237:
167:
156:
153:
149:
134:
133:
132:
117:
108:
97:Please help
89:
18:
103:introducing
731:Categories
719:References
588:s 19(2)(d)
425:UK labour
682:C-256/01
665:C-187/00
648:C-184/89
633:C-171/88
618:C-109/88
603:C-170/84
548:C-285/98
533:C-273/97
519:EWHC 860
506:C-222/84
492:IRLR 150
245:IRLR 322
180:See also
164:Judgment
111:May 2023
52:Keywords
680:(2004)
663:(2003)
646:(1991)
631:(1989)
616:(1989)
601:(1984)
577:ICR 320
563:ICR 768
546:(2000)
531:(1999)
504:(1986)
379:UKSC 15
363:UKHL 55
349:UKHL 11
336:UKHL 48
310:ICR 868
297:UKHL 13
270:AC 1155
258:ICR 755
99:improve
283:UKHL 6
157:Perera
714:Notes
479:Sch 9
225:ss 13
146:Facts
84:, or
29:Court
690:see
427:and
423:see
227:and
229:136
733::
88:,
80:,
461:e
454:t
447:v
207:e
200:t
193:v
124:)
118:(
113:)
109:(
95:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.