| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
| Home | Overview | Disability | Employment | Services | Education | Benefits | Business | Advice | Links | More... |
|
These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.
|
House of Lords, [1990] ICR 554
The Council provided free swimming facilities for old age pensioners. The qualifying age was accordingly 65 for men and 60 for women.
The House of Lords held that this was sex discrimination, regardless of motive. The test was objective. "But for" his gender, a man of 61 like Mr James would have received the same free swimming facilities as his wife.
Whilst reaffirming that motive is irrelevant, Lord Phillips in the JFS admissions case (link to pdf on Supreme Court website) did not consider the 'but for' test helpful: he said, "It is better simply to ask what were the facts that the discriminator considered to be determinative when making the relevant decision." There was also is discussion on the 'but for' test in Amnesty International v Ahmed, 2009. An example of facts where the test is inappropriate are Martin v Lancehawk Ltd (link to bailii.org).
Employment: Direct discrimination
Homepage | DDA in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Privacy (cookies) | Disclaimer
Last updated 27h December, 2009
