Employment Discrimination Law — The Main Provisions

  • Laurence Lustgarten


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.


Racial Discrimination Supplementary Benefit Employment Discrimination Main Provision Legal Control 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See the analysis in A. Ogus and E. Barendt, The Law of Social Security (Butterworth, 1978) pp. 48–52.Google Scholar
  2. 10.
    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.Google Scholar
  3. 13.
    See the analysis by M. Freedland, The Contract of Employment (Clarendon Press, 1976) chap. 1, and especially the Postscript, pp. 372–6.Google Scholar
  4. 15.
    For citations and discussion, see Simpson, ‘Trade dispute and Industrial Dispute in English Law’, (1977) 40 M.L.R. 16, 17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 19.
    See, further, P. Atiyah, Vacarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Butterworth, 1967) chap. 19.Google Scholar
  6. 43.
    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.Google Scholar
  7. 48.
    On gross misconduct and unfair dismissal see S. D. Anderman, The Law of Unfair Dismissal (Butterworth, 1978) pp. 104–10.Google Scholar
  8. 59.
    On which see Elias, ‘Unraveling the Concept of Dismissal’, (1978) 7 I.L.J. 16, 101.Google Scholar
  9. 72.
    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 byGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Freedland, (1978) 7 I.L.J. 50.Google Scholar
  11. 92.
    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,Google Scholar
  12. and A. Ogus, The Law of Damages (Butterworth, 1973) p. 224, but remains the governing law.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Laurence Lustgarten 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurence Lustgarten
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of WarwickUK

Personalised recommendations