Anti-discrimination law: Difference between revisions

{{More citations needed|date=DecemberMarch 20122022}}

'''Anti-discrimination law''' or '''non-discrimination law''' refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as [[protected group]]s or protected classes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Levit |first=Nancy |date=2012-05-01 |title=Changing Workforce Demographics and the Future of The Protected Class Approach |journal=Lewis & Clark Law Review |language=en |location=Rochester, NY |ssrn=2033792}}</ref> Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umijlr31&div=24&id=&page=|title=Local Government Anti-Discrimination Laws: Do They Make a Difference|pages=777|date=1997–1998|journal=University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform|volume=31|orig-year=1997-1998|access-date=2018-07-09|last1=Readler|first1=Chad A.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319900674|title=Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law -– Challenges and Innovative Tools {{!}} Marie Mercat-Bruns {{!}} Springer|language=en|isbn=9783319900674|publisher=Springer|year=2018|series=Ius Comparatum -– Global Studies in Comparative Law}}</ref> Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as [[public accommodations]]. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on [[sex]], age, [[Race (human classification)|race]], [[ethnicity]], [[nationality]], [[disability]], mental [[mental illness|illness]] or [[mind|ability]], [[sexual orientation]], [[gender]], [[gender identity|gender identity/expression]], [[sex characteristics]], [[religion]], [[creed]], or individual [[political opinion]]s.

Anti-discrimination laws are rooted in principles of equality, specifically, that individuals should not be treated differently due to the characteristics outlined above.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Holmes|first=Elisa|date=2005|title=Anti-Discrimination Rights Without Equality|journal=Modern Law Review|language=en|volume=68|issue=2|pages=175–194|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2230.2005.00534.x|issn=0026-7961}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Donohue III|first=John J.|date=2005|title=The Law and Economics of Antidiscrimination Law|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w11631|journal=NBER Working Paper No. 11631|series=Working Paper Series |doi=10.3386/w11631|doi-access=free}}</ref> At the same time, they have often been criticised as violations of the inherent [[right of free association]]. Anti-discrimination laws are designed to protect against both individual discrimination (committed by individuals) and from [[structural discrimination]] (arising from policies or procedures that disadvantage certain groups).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Seicshnaydre |first=Stacy E. |date=2007-09-18 |title=Is the Road to Disparate Impact Paved With Good Intentions? --– Stuck on State of Mind in Antidiscrimination Law |journal=Wake Forest Law Review |language=en |location=Rochester, NY |ssrn=1015317}}</ref> Courts may take into account both discriminatory intent and [[disparate impact]] in determining whether a particular action or policy constitutes discrimination.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Huq |first=Aziz Z. |date=2017-09-06 |title=Judging Discriminatory Intent |journal=Cornell Law Review |language=en |location=Rochester, NY |ssrn=3033169}}</ref>

Equality and freedom from discrimination are outlines as basic human rights by the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] (UDHR).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/|title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights|website=www.un.org|language=en|access-date=2018-07-10|date=2015-10-06}}</ref> While the UDHR is not binding, nations make a commitment to uphold those rights through the ratification of international human rights treaties.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/human-rights-law/index.html|title=Human Rights Law|website=www.un.org|language=en|access-date=2018-07-10|date=2015-09-02}}</ref> Specific treaties relevant to anti-discrimination law include the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]], the [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]], the [[Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women|Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women]], and the [[International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Weiwei|first=Li|title=Equality and Non-Discrimination Under International Human Rights Law|citeseerx=10.1.1.454.7875}}</ref> In addition, the United Nations [[Sustainable Development Goal 10]] and [[Sustainable Development Goal 16|Goal 16]] also advocates for international efforts towards eliminating discriminatory laws.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Goal 10 targets|url=https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-10-reduced-inequalities/targets.html|access-date=2020-09-23|website=UNDP|language=en|archive-date=2020-11-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127140337/https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-10-reduced-inequalities/targets.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The first Belgian anti-discrimination law of 25 February 2003 was annulled by the Belgian Constitutional Court. The Court ruled that the law was discriminative since its scope didn'tdid not include discrimination on the basis of a political opinion or language and thus violated the articles 10-11 of the Belgian Constitution, instituting the principle of equality before law.<ref>Belgian Constitutional Court 6th of October 2004, [https://www.lachambre.be/site/wwwcfm/dlms/dlms_doc.cfm?entity=juri2&xfile=0000000205%5CAH157.pdf nr. 157/2004].</ref>

The European Union has passed several major anti-discrimination directives, the [[Racial Equality Directive]] and the Employment Equality Directive, and the [[Equal Treatment Directive 2006|Equal Treatment Directive]]. These directives set standards for all member countries of the European Union to meet; however each member state is responsible for creating specific legislation to achieve those goals.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=BELL|first=MARK|date=2008|title=The Implementation of European Anti-Discrimination Directives: Converging towards a Common Model?|journal=The Political Quarterly|language=en|volume=79|issue=1|pages=36–44|doi=10.1111/j.1467-923x.2008.00900.x|issn=0032-3179}}</ref> The [[Court of Justice of the European Union]] interprets the European Union anti-discrimination law as [[substantive equality]] with [[equality of outcome]] for subgroups.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229120927947 | doi=10.1177/1358229120927947 | title=The European Court of Justice and the march towards substantive equality in European Union anti-discrimination law | date=2020 | last1=De Vos | first1=Marc | journal=International Journal of Discrimination and the Law | volume=20 | pages=62–87 }}</ref>

In the 1970s, anti-discrimination law was significantly expanded. The [[Equal Pay Act 1970]] allowed women to bring action against their employer if they could show that they were being paid less compared to a male colleague for equal work or work of the same value. The [[Sex Discrimination Act 1975]] forbade both direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex, and the [[Race Relations Act 1976]] expanded the scope of anti-discrimination law on the basis of race and ethnicity.<ref name="Hardy20112">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WueVcnVQCkkC&pg=PA216|title=Labour Law in Great Britain|author=Stephen T. Hardy|publisher=Kluwer Law International|year=2011|isbn=978-90-411-3455-4|page=216}}{{Dead link|date=September 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

In 1868 after the [[American Civil War]], the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] was ratified, including the [[Equal Protection Clause]]. It was an effort by [[John Bingham]] and other [[Radical Republicans]] to protect formerly-enslaved people from discrimination. Nevertheless, the promises of this and other [[Reconstruction Amendments]] went largely unfulfilled for nearly a century thanks to the profusion of racist [[Jim Crow laws]] designed to oppress [[persons of color]] and reinforce [[racial segregation in the United States]]. The [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] was the firstnext major development in anti-discrimination law in the US, though prior civil rights legislation (such as the [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]]) addressed some forms of discrimination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was much broader, providing protections for race, colorcolour, religion, sex, or national origin in the areas of voting, education, employment, and public accommodations.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript|title=Our Documents - Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964)|website=www.ourdocuments.gov|access-date=2018-07-10}}</ref> This landmark legislation led the way for other federal legislation, which expanded upon the protected classes and forms of discrimination prohibited under federal legislation, such as the [[Fair Housing Act]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yinger|first=John|date=1999|title=Sustaining the Fair Housing Act|journal=Cityscape|volume=4|issue=3|pages=93–106|jstor=20868477}}</ref> or the [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990|Americans with Disabilities Act]].<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hcrcl26&div=16&id=&page=|title=The Americans with Disabilities Act: Analysis and Implications of a Second-Generation Civil Rights Statute|pages=413|last=Burgdorf, Jr.|first=Robert L. Jr.|date=1991|journal=Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review|volume=26|access-date=2018-07-15}}</ref> These protections have also been expanded through the courts interpretation of these pieces of legislation. For example, the 7thU.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and 2ndSecond circuitCircuits, courtsand havelater boththe U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'', ruled that [[LGBT employment discrimination in the United States|employment discrimination based on sexual orientation]] is a violation of [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kreis|first=Anthony Michael|date=2018-05-11|title=A Fresh Look at Title VII: Sexual Orientation Discrimination as Sex Discrimination|language=en|location=Rochester, NY|ssrn=3177112}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt/u-s-appeals-court-says-title-vii-covers-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation-idUSKCN1GA201|title=U.S. appeals court says Title VII covers discrimination based on...|last=Wiessner|first=Daniel|work=U.S.|access-date=2018-07-15|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":2">''Bostock v. Clayton County''. (n.d.). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618</ref> In addition to federal legislation, there are numerous state and local laws that address discrimination that is not covered by these laws.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/state_nondiscrimination.pdf|title=A State by State Examination of Nondiscrimination Laws and Policies: State Nondiscrimination Policies Fill the Void but Federal Protections Are Still Needed|last=Hunt|first=Jerome|date=2012|access-date=2018-07-31|archive-date=2018-12-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181207161401/https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/state_nondiscrimination.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Employment rates for all disabled men and disabled women under 40 have decreased since the implementation of the ADA.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=DeLeire|first=Thomas|date=2000|title=The Wage and Employment Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act|journal=The Journal of Human Resources|volume=35|issue=4|pages=693–715|doi=10.2307/146368|jstor=146368}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nber.org/digest/dec98/w6670.html|title=Consequences of the Americans With Disabilities Act|website=www.nber.org|access-date=2018-07-17}}</ref> This effect is especially pronounced for those with mental disabilities and for those with lower levels of education.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=DeLeire|first=Thomas|s2cid=8311722|date=2000|title=The Unintended Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act|journal=Regulation|volume=23}}</ref> However, there is evidence to suggest that the decrease in employment rates is partially explained by increased participation in educational opportunities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jolls|first=Christine|date=2004|title=Identifying the Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act Using State-Law Variation: Preliminary Evidence on Educational Participation Effects|journal=The American Economic Review|volume=94|issue=2|pages=447–453|jstor=3592926|doi=10.1257/0002828041301867|pmid=29068190|s2cid=23364222|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w10528.pdf}}</ref> These decreases can be attributed to increased costs for employers to remain in compliance with ADA provisions; rather than bearing increased costs, companies hire fewer workers with disabilities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Acemoglu|first1=Daron|last2=Angrist|first2=Joshua|date=1998|title=Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act|series=Working Paper Series |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w6670|doi=10.3386/w6670|citeseerx=10.1.1.321.1338}}</ref> While popular conception is that the ADA has created the opportunity for legal recourse for those with disabilities, less than 10% of ADA related cases find in favor of the plaintiff.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hcrcl34&div=9&id=&page=|title=The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants|pages=99|last=Colker|first=Ruth|date=1999|journal=Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review|volume=34|access-date=2018-07-17}}</ref>

In many nations with anti-discrimination legislation, women are excluded from holding certain positions in the military, such as serving in a frontline combat capacity or aboard submarines. The reason given varies; for example, the British [[Royal Navy]] cite the reason for not allowing women to serve aboard submarines as medical and related to the safety of an unborn fetusfoetus, rather than that of combat effectiveness.<ref>[http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2560 More Submarine FAQs] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080410004357/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2560 |date=April 10, 2008 }}, See question number 15: Why are women not permitted to serve on submarines? Royal Navy website. Retrieved 30-03-2008</ref><ref>[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/WomenInTheArmedForces.htm MOD factsheet: Women in the armed forces] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607233704/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/WomenInTheArmedForces.htm |date=2011-06-07 }}. Retrieved 30-03-2008</ref>

* [[Labour law]]

* [[Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention]] (ILO Convention No. 111)

* [[Anti-discrimination laws in Brazil]]

* [[Employment equity (Canada)]]
* [[Employment discrimination law in the United States]]

* [[Employment discrimination law in the United Kingdom]]

* [[History of women in the military]]

* [[LGBT rights by country or territory]]

* [[Public accommodations]]

* [[Reasonable accommodation]]

*[http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_per_year/pub_handbook_caselaw_en.htm Handbook on European non-discrimination law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120724031840/http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_per_year/pub_handbook_caselaw_en.htm |date=2012-07-24 }}, [[Fundamental Rights Agency]], 2011