Because British anti-discrimination legislation is significantly based on the American precedent contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, it is instructive to compare judicial developments in the two countries. This article argues, first, that the standard of justification imposed in America in indirect discrimination cases is less strict than has often been asserted; and, secondly, that there are sound legal and policy reasons why a standard less than literal necessity is appropriate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RosemaryAlito(1993) Disparate Impact Discrimination under the 1991 Civil Rights Act. Rutgers Law Review45, 1011–1041.
2.
BartholetE.(1987) Application of Title VII to jobs in High Places. Harvard Law Review, 95, 947–1027.
3.
PaulBrest(1976) In Defense of the Antidiscrimination Principle. Harvard Law Review, 90, 1–54.
4.
Commission for Racial Equality (1992) Second Review of the Race Relations Act 1976. CRE; London.
5.
Equal Opportunities Commission (1990) Equal Treatment for men and women — strengthening the Acts. EOC; Manchester.
6.
OwenFiss(1971) A Theory of Fair Employment Laws. University of Chicago Law Review, 38, 235–314.
7.
GaraudMarcelC., (1990) Legal Standards and Statistical Proof in Title VII Litigation: In search of a Coherent Disparate Impact Model. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 139, 455–503.
8.
JohnGardner(1989) Liberals and Unlawful Discrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 9, 1–22.
9.
GreenbergerSteven R.(1993) A Productivity Approach to Disparate Impact and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Oregon Law Review, 72, 253–322.
10.
JenkinsR.(1986) Racism and Recruitment. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
11.
MarkKelman(1993) Concepts of Discrimination in ‘General Ability’ Job Testing. Harvard Law Review, 104, 1157–1247.
12.
LeiboldPeter M.SolaStephen A.JonesReginald E.(1993) Civil Rights Act of 1991: Race to the Finish — Civil Rights, Quotas, and Disparate Impact in 1991. Rutgers Law Review, 45, 1043–1087.
13.
BarbaraLerner(1979) Employment Discrimination: Adverse Impact, Validity and Equality. The Supreme Court Review, 1979, 17–49.
14.
LustgartenL.(1978) The New Meaning of Discrimination. Public Law, 1978, 178–205.
15.
McCruddenC.(1982) Institutional Discrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 303–367.
16.
PeamM.KandolaR.MottramR.(1987) Selection Tests and Sex Bias: The impact of selection testing on the employment opportunities of men and women. Equal Opportunities Commission; London.
17.
GeorgeRutherglen(1987) Disparate Impact under Title VII: An Objective Theory of Discrimination. Virginia Law Review, 73, 1297–1345.
18.
RichardTownshend-Smith(1992) American Civil Rights in Retreat. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 12, 129–134.
19.
WillbomS.(1985) The Disparate Impact Model of Discrimination: Theory and Limits. American University Law Review, 34, 799–836.
