Abstract
Employment discrimination is governed mainly by s. 4, reproduced in the Appendix. It will be seen that s. 4 (1) concerns applicants or inquirers, whilst s. 4 (2) relates to employees. The discussion of employment discrimination in this chapter will follow this sequence. However, three technical points, applicable equally to both subsections, may be examined first.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See the analysis in A. Ogus and E. Barendt, The Law of Social Security (Butterworth, 1978) pp. 48–52.
See S. de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edn, 1973) part III, especially chaps. 8 and 11, for the history and rules governing these remedies. On the present simplified form of the ‘application for review’ (Order 53) see Beatson and Matthews, (1978) 41 M.L.R. 437.
See the analysis by M. Freedland, The Contract of Employment (Clarendon Press, 1976) chap. 1, and especially the Postscript, pp. 372–6.
For citations and discussion, see Simpson, ‘Trade dispute and Industrial Dispute in English Law’, (1977) 40 M.L.R. 16, 17–18.
See, further, P. Atiyah, Vacarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Butterworth, 1967) chap. 19.
The most-cited case seems to be Rowe v. General Motors Corp. 457 F. 2d 348 (5th Circ. 1972). For discussion of the broad issue and citation of numerous American cases on subjective criteria see B. Schlei and P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law (Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, 1976) pp. 72–6. A brief summary of several other promotion cases — none of which has been reported — may be found in I.D.S., Brief, Supp. 23, pp. 29–30.
On gross misconduct and unfair dismissal see S. D. Anderman, The Law of Unfair Dismissal (Butterworth, 1978) pp. 104–10.
On which see Elias, ‘Unraveling the Concept of Dismissal’, (1978) 7 I.L.J. 16, 101.
Figures on the number of such orders made in 1975–7 are given by B. Bercusson, The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (Stevens, 1979) annotation to s. 68. For a discussion of how failure to perceive that reinstatement/re-engagement are the primary remedies has affected judicial interpretation see the Note by
M. Freedland, (1978) 7 I.L.J. 50.
Foxley v. Olton, [1965] 2 Q.B. 306. This decision has been criticised by commentators, notably P. Atiyah, Accidents, Compensation and the Law (2nd edn, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975) p. 407,
and A. Ogus, The Law of Damages (Butterworth, 1973) p. 224, but remains the governing law.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1980 Laurence Lustgarten
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lustgarten, L. (1980). Employment Discrimination Law — The Main Provisions. In: Legal Control of Racial Discrimination. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16439-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16439-4_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-24388-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-16439-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)