Abstract
This contribution provides an overview of what American anti-discrimination lawyers from the United States would and would not recognize when looking at the complex, multilevel framework on anti-discrimination law as it has developed in Europe, thanks also due to EU law. It argues that there is a whole set of elements ranging from grounds of discrimination, equality bodies and legal and academic debates which American colleagues would recognize. At the same time, it also argues that on other aspects parallels would not be as obvious. On the one hand, European anti-discrimination law has gone further than its American counterpart, especially with regard to indirect discrimination and quotas and this also thanks to the international legal framework and case law. On the other hand, a certain lack of anti-discrimination law culture in most European countries, and the difficulties to deal with race and the acceptance of Muslim headscarf and veil bans due to lack of reasonable accommodation on the grounds of religion could be mentioned here as consisting in the lesser developed side of European anti-discrimination law.
Mathias Möschel is Associate Professor at Central European University.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
There is a whole research centre, the “Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-discrimination Law” focusing, if not exclusively, on the comparisons between the United States and Europe in this domain. Here below are some names of the best known comparative anti-discrimination legal scholars—even though they might not necessarily identify themselves as such: Mark Bell, Emmanuelle Bribosia, Barbara Havelková, Tanya Katerí Hernandez, Bob Hepple, Chris McCrudden, Marie Mercat-Bruns, Julie Ringelheim, Isabelle Rorive, Ruth Rubio-Marín, Iyiola Solanke, Julie Suk, Lisa Waddington and David Oppenheimer. Moreover, in 2012 a special issue of the American Journal of Comparative Law has been dedicated precisely to the “Trajectories of European and American Anti-Discrimination Law”.
- 2.
Möschel (2014).
- 3.
Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180/22 (2000) (hereinafter the Race Equality Directive); Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303/16 (2000) (hereinafter the Employment Equality Directive); and Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), OJ 2006 L 204/23 (2006) (hereinafter the Sex Equality Directive).
- 4.
For a theoretical understanding of this convergence of grounds of discrimination also beyond the US-EU dichotomy, see Khaitan (2018).
- 5.
De Witte (2012).
- 6.
See art. 13 of the Race Equality Directive and art. 20 of the Sex Equality Directive.
- 7.
See e.g. art. 5 of the Race Equality Directive and art. 3 of the Sex Equality Directive.
- 8.
Griggs v Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
- 9.
On this story, see: Lester (1988), pp. 550–552.
- 10.
See e.g. art. 2.2(b) of the Race Equality Directive and of the Employment Equality Directive.
- 11.
MacKinnon (1979).
- 12.
See e.g. art. 2.3 of the Race Equality Directive and of the Employment Equality Directive.
- 13.
See e.g. Directive 97/80/EC on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex, Official Journal L 014/6 (1997).
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
- 17.
Franklin (2010).
- 18.
- 19.
See e.g. Hepple (2006), p. 617 and Thomas (1999).
- 20.
Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
- 21.
D.H. and Others v Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, 13 November 2007.
- 22.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018).
- 23.
Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others, UKSC 49 (2018).
- 24.
See on this: Mayeri (2014).
- 25.
See on this e.g.: Bell (2002), esp. 32–53.
- 26.
On this see: Suk (2007).
- 27.
See for all: Oppenheimer et al. (2012), pp. 602–675.
- 28.
See e.g.: Kahn (2014).
- 29.
More in detail on this see: De Burca (2012).
- 30.
In this sense see e.g.: Suk (2015).
- 31.
Rubio-Marín (2012).
- 32.
See e.g. France (Law no. 2011-103 of 27 January 2011 concerning the balanced representation of women and men on corporate boards and professional equality) and Italy (Law 12 July 2011, no. 120 concerning equal access to corporate boards of publicly listed companies). The European Commission is still debating the introduction of a similar instrument EU-wide: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures, COM/2012/0614 final - 2012/0299 (COD) of 14 December 2012.
- 33.
See in more detail on this Waddington (1994), esp. 368–377.
- 34.
This is the case for example in Hungary, Romania and Macedonia.
- 35.
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
- 36.
See e.g.: Case 177/88, Dekker, (ECJ 8 November 1990) ECLI:EU:C:1990:383.
- 37.
Case C-54/07, Feryn, (ECJ 10 June 2008) ECLI:EU:C:2008:397.
- 38.
Case C-303/06, Coleman, (ECJ 17 July 2008) EU:C:2008:415; and Case C-83/14, CHEZ, (ECJ 16 July 2015) EU:C:2015:480.
- 39.
Case C-335/11, HK Danmark, (ECJ 11 April 2013) EU:C:2013:222. See also the contribution by Degener to this volume.
- 40.
Generically on this see: O’Connell (2009).
- 41.
App.-No. 57325/00, D.H. and Others v Czech Republic (ECtHR, GC 13 November 2007) and App.- No. 38590/10, Biao v Denmark (ECtHR, GC 24 May 2016).
- 42.
See e.g.: App.- No. 41237/14, Talpis v Italy, (ECtHR 2 March 2017).
- 43.
See e.g.: App.-No. 30078/06, Konstantin Markin v Russia (ECtHR, GC 7 October 2010) and App.- no. 17484/15, Carvalho Pinto v Portugal, (ECtHR 25 July 2017).
- 44.
App.-No. 48474/14, Lingurar v Romania, (ECtHR 16 April 2019).
- 45.
- 46.
However, the CJEU has explained that EU law allows member states to introduce damage awards but are not obliged to do so, in anti-discrimination law cases: Case 407/14, Camacho, (ECJ 17 December 2015) ECLI:EU:C:2015:831.
- 47.
Möschel (2014).
- 48.
Id., esp. 122–128.
- 49.
Case 443/15, Parris, (ECJ 24 November 2016) ECLI:EU:C:2016:897 and the note by Möschel (2017).
- 50.
Bribosia et al. (2010).
- 51.
See e.g. Article 5 of Directive 2000/78.
- 52.
See e.g. App.-No. 51500/08, Çam v Turkey, (ECtHR 23 February 2016) and App.-No 23065/12, Enver Șahin v Turkey, (ECtHR 30 January 2018).
- 53.
Here I refer not to national case law but only to the cases by the CJEU: Case 157/15, Achbita, (ECJ, GC 14 March 2017) EU:C:2017:203 and Case 188/15, Bougnaoui, (ECJ, GC 14 March 2017) EU:C:2017:204; and by the ECtHR which in certain cases found no violation of freedom of religion by such bans: App.-No 42393/98, Dahlab v Switzerland, (ECtHR 15 February 2001); App.-No 4474/98, Leyla Şahin v Turkey (ECtHR 10 November 2005); App.-No 27058/05, Dogru v France, (ECtHR 4 December 2008); App.-No. 31645/04, Kervanci v France, (ECtHR 4 December 2008); App.-No. 43835/11, S.A.S. v France (ECtHR, GC 1 July 2014); App.-No. 64846/11, Ebrahimian v France, (ECtHR 26 November 2015); App.-No. 377908/13, Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium, (ECtHR 11 July 2017) and App.-No. 4619/12, Dakir v Belgium, (ECtHR 11 July 2017) or in others declared applications simply inadmissible: App.-No. 43563/08, Aktas v France (dec.) (ECtHR 30 June 2009); App.-No. 14308/08, Bayrak v France (dec.), (ECtHR 30 June 2009); App.-No. 29134/08, Ghazal v France (dec.), (ECtHR 30 June 2009); App.-No. 18527, Gamaleddyn v France (dec.), (ECtHR 30 June 2009).
References
Bell, Mark. 2002. Anti-Discrimination Law and the European Union. Oxford: OUP.
Bribosia, Emanuelle, Julie Ringelheim, and Isabelle Rorive. 2010. Reasonable Accommodation for Religious Minorities: A Promising Concept for European Antidiscrimination Law? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 17: 137–161.
Carbin, Maria, and Sara Edenheim. 2013. The Intersectional Turn in Feminist Theory: A Dream of a Common Language. European Journal of Women’s Studies 20: 233–248.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–167.
———. 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1299.
Davis, Kathy. 2008. Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful. Feminist Theory 9: 70–77.
De Burca, Grainne. 2012. The Trajectories of European and American Anti-Discrimination Law. American Journal of Comparative Law 60: 1–22.
De Witte, Bruno. 2012. New Institutions for Promoting Equality in Europe: Legal Transfer, Bricolage and European Governance. American Journal of Comparative Law 60: 49–74.
Défenseur des droits. 2018. Multiplication des critères de discriminations. Enjeux, effets et perspectives. Available at: https://defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/actescolloq-2018-num-07.01.19.pdf.
Franklin, Cary. 2010. The Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law. New York University Law Review 85: 83–173.
Havelková, Barbara. 2017. Gender Equality in Law. Uncovering the Legacies of Czech State Socialism. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart.
Kahn, Robert A. 2014. Why Do Europeans Ban Hate Speech? A Debate Between Karl Loewenstein and Robert Post. Hofstra Law Review 41: 545–585.
Khaitan, Tarunabh. 2018. A Theory of Discrimination Law. Oxford: OUP.
Lester, Anthony. 1988. The Overseas Trade in the American Bill of Rights. Columbia Law Review 88: 537–561.
MacKinnon, Katherine A. 1979. Sexual Harassment of Working Women. Yale: Yale University Press.
Mayeri, Serena. 2014. Reasoning from Race. Feminism, Law, and the Civil Rights Revolution. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Möschel, Mathias. 2014. Law, Lawyers and Race. Critical Race Theory from the United States to Europe. London: Routledge.
———. 2017. If and When Sexual Orientation and Age Intersect: Parris. Common Market Law Review 54: 1835–1851.
O’Connell, Rory. 2009. Cinderella Comes to the Ball: Article 14 and the Right to Non-Discrimination in the ECHR. Legal Studies 29: 211–229.
Oppenheimer, David, Sheila Foster, and Sora Han. 2012. Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law. Cases, Codes, Constitutions, and Commentary. New York: Foundation Press.
Rubio-Marín, Ruth. 2012. A New European Parity-Democracy Sex Equality Model and Why It Won’t Fly in the United States. American Journal of Comparative Law 60: 99–125.
Suk, Julie. 2007. Equal by Comparison: Unsettling Assumptions of Antidiscrimination Law. American Journal of Comparative Law 55: 295–346.
———. 2015. Disparate Impact Abroad. In A Nation of Widening Opportunities. The Civil Rights Act at 50, ed. Ellen D. Katz and Samuel R. Bagenstos, 283–306. Michigan Publishing.
Thomas, Kendall. 1999. The Political Economy of Recognition: Affirmative Action Discourse and Constitutional Equality in Germany and the USA. Columbia Journal of European Law 5: 329–364.
Timmer, Alexandra. 2011. Toward and Anti-Stereotyping Approach for the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 11: 707–738.
———. 2016. Gender Stereotyping in the Case Law of the EU Court of Justice. European Equality Law Review 1: 37–46.
Waddington, Lisa. 1994. Legislating to Employ People with Disabilities: The European and American Way. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 1: 367–395.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Möschel, M. (2020). European Anti-Discrimination Law: The American Perspective. In: Giegerich, T. (eds) The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43763-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43764-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)