128:
Second, it was rejected that a church group under r 7(3) could dismiss a gay cleaner, dismiss a science teacher for being a lesbian or not employ a gay person at a bookshop with holy scripts, even though people may have strong convictions. Nor could a Muslim group refuse a librarian post to someone appearing to be gay. It was ‘clear from the
Parliamentary material that the exception was intended to be very narrow; and… is on its proper construction, very narrow.’ That so, because it is a derogation from the equal treatment principle. Third, there is a difference between a religious organisation, such as a faith school where there can be no discrimination, and ‘for the purposes of an organised religion’ where there can. Fourth, ‘so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion’ would be an objective rather than a subjective test under r 7(3)(b)(ii).
42:
127:
Richards J held that the implementation was adequate, though it was stressed that the exceptions would be tightly construed. First, the genuine occupational requirements could apply where the employers were not satisfied an applicant met its requirements, as well as where they did not in fact.
118:
Various unions, including Amicus, challenged the government's implementation of sexuality discrimination law. In particular it was asked whether the exceptions created for churches and religious groups, being allowed to exclude gay people from employment was legitimate (r.7(3)).
310:
425:
107:
17:
240:
450:
157:
435:
372:
255:
325:
355:
269:
440:
213:
295:
430:
198:
340:
150:
400:
41:
445:
143:
379:
362:
345:
330:
315:
300:
245:
230:
203:
225:
52:
71:
8:
285:
176:
135:
282:
173:
186:
106:
challenged the government's new implementation of EU Directive 2000/78/EC in the
419:
405:
389:
99:
95:
R. (on the application of Amicus) v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
103:
108:
Employment
Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
165:
35:
R (Amicus) v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
426:Anti-discrimination case law in the United Kingdom
417:
374:Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College
151:
257:Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality
158:
144:
40:
357:Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
271:Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2)
311:Kontofunktionaerernes Forbund v Danfoss
14:
418:
214:R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry
18:R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry
326:Rinner-Kühn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG
296:Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
139:
451:United Kingdom LGBTQ rights case law
199:Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary
166:Sources on justifying discrimination
436:United Kingdom trade union case law
341:Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
24:
25:
462:
401:UK employment discrimination law
441:2004 in United Kingdom case law
13:
1:
7:
431:High Court of Justice cases
131:
122:
27:2004 British labor law case
10:
467:
386:
369:
352:
337:
322:
307:
292:
280:
266:
252:
237:
222:
210:
195:
183:
171:
83:
78:
74:, IRLR 430, Pens LR 261
66:
58:
48:
39:
34:
411:
113:
102:case, where a number of
226:Sirdar v The Army Board
98:EWHC 860 (Admin) is a
446:2004 in LGBTQ history
70:ICR 1176, ELR 311,
53:High Court of Justice
396:
395:
283:Equality Act 2010
174:Equality Act 2010
91:
90:
16:(Redirected from
458:
375:
358:
272:
258:
187:Etam plc v Rowan
160:
153:
146:
137:
136:
79:Court membership
72:EWHC 860 (Admin)
44:
32:
31:
21:
466:
465:
461:
460:
459:
457:
456:
455:
416:
415:
414:
397:
392:
382:
373:
365:
356:
348:
333:
318:
303:
288:
276:
270:
262:
256:
248:
241:Kreil v Germany
233:
218:
206:
191:
179:
167:
164:
134:
125:
116:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
464:
454:
453:
448:
443:
438:
433:
428:
413:
410:
409:
408:
403:
394:
393:
387:
384:
383:
370:
367:
366:
353:
350:
349:
338:
335:
334:
323:
320:
319:
308:
305:
304:
293:
290:
289:
281:
278:
277:
267:
264:
263:
253:
250:
249:
238:
235:
234:
223:
220:
219:
211:
208:
207:
196:
193:
192:
184:
181:
180:
172:
169:
168:
163:
162:
155:
148:
140:
133:
130:
124:
121:
115:
112:
89:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
75:
68:
64:
63:
60:
56:
55:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
463:
452:
449:
447:
444:
442:
439:
437:
434:
432:
429:
427:
424:
423:
421:
407:
406:UK labour law
404:
402:
399:
398:
391:
390:UK labour law
385:
381:
377:
376:
368:
364:
360:
359:
351:
347:
343:
342:
336:
332:
328:
327:
321:
317:
313:
312:
306:
302:
298:
297:
291:
287:
284:
279:
274:
273:
265:
260:
259:
251:
247:
243:
242:
236:
232:
228:
227:
221:
216:
215:
209:
205:
201:
200:
194:
189:
188:
182:
178:
175:
170:
161:
156:
154:
149:
147:
142:
141:
138:
129:
120:
111:
109:
105:
101:
100:UK labour law
97:
96:
86:
84:Judge sitting
82:
77:
73:
69:
65:
62:26 April 2004
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
371:
354:
339:
324:
309:
294:
268:
254:
239:
224:
212:
197:
185:
126:
117:
104:trade unions
94:
93:
92:
29:
420:Categories
286:s 19(2)(d)
87:Richards J
67:Citations
380:C-256/01
363:C-187/00
346:C-184/89
331:C-171/88
316:C-109/88
301:C-170/84
246:C-285/98
231:C-273/97
217:EWHC 860
204:C-222/84
190:IRLR 150
132:See also
123:Judgment
378:(2004)
361:(2003)
344:(1991)
329:(1989)
314:(1989)
299:(1984)
275:ICR 320
261:ICR 768
244:(2000)
229:(1999)
202:(1986)
59:Decided
412:Notes
177:Sch 9
114:Facts
49:Court
388:see
422::
110:.
159:e
152:t
145:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)