To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

R v Birmingham City Council, ex p Equal Opportunities Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council
CourtHouse of Lords
Citation(s)[1989] AC 1155; [1989] IRLR 173; [1989] 1 All ER 769; [1989] 2 WLR 520; 87 LGR 557; (1989) 86(15) LSG 36; (1989) 139 NLJ 292; (1989) 133 SJ 322; affirming [1988] 3 WLR 837; [1988] IRLR 430; 86 LGR 741; (1988) 152 LG Rev 1035
Keywords
Education discrimination

R (Equal Opportunities Commission) v Birmingham City Council [1989] AC 1155 is a discrimination case, relevant for UK labour law case, concerning the appropriate comparisons that should be made.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    4 658
    784
    434 539
  • 2017 Last Lecture Series | Dean Martha Minow
  • Kwame Nkrumah
  • The Rich in America: Power, Control, Wealth and the Elite Upper Class in the United States

Transcription

Facts

Birmingham only provided 360 grammar school places for girls, and 540 for boys. At first instance, the EOC won. The Court of Appeal upheld this. The Council appealed, arguing it had not shown that selective education was better than non-selective education as a precondition to showing less favourable treatment, and in any case the Council had no intention or motivation to discriminate.

Judgment

Lord Goff dismissed the council’s appeal, saying first that it did not need to be shown that selective education was ‘better’, just that girls were not being given the same opportunities. Second, it is enough that there is less favourable treatment and the ‘intention or motive of the defendant to discriminate, though it may be relevant so far as remedies are concerned… is not a necessary condition to liability.’ That would be a bad idea because then ‘it would be a good defence for an employer to show that he discriminated against women not because he intended to do so but (for example) because of customer preference, or to save money, or even to avoid controversy.’

See also

Notes

References

  • "Case Reports" (1992) 136 The Solicitors' Journal 96 (No 13, 3 April 1992)
  • 139 The New Law Journal 292 and 834
  • 152 Local Government Review 1035
  • Collins, Ewing and McColgan. Labour Law: Text and Materials. Second Edition. Bloomsbury Academic. 2005. Paragraph 3.18 at pages 237.
  • Michael Connolly. Discrimination Law. Sweet & Maxwell. 2006. Paras 4-006, 4-015, 4-017, 4-020, 4-035, 5-011, 5-012, 5-026, 7-007, 7-008 and 10-003.
This page was last edited on 10 March 2024, at 19:36
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.