70

Yes, it's legal. It would be lawful discrimination on objectively and reasonably justified grounds Here's why: On the face of it, this is a case of direct discrimination contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010: (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or ...


37

There is a rather elaborate three step analysis that is done in civil rights cases under U.S. precedents. Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence of discrimination (which is less frequently available to plaintiffs), is analyzed under a three-part test created by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). STEP ...


16

Most of these policies are illegal, though this isn't widely recognized Here's why: There are some added complexities here that Matthew's answer hasn't addressed, especially in the meanings of words like group and disadvantage. Let’s focus on the latter of the two and proceed by way of example. Suppose the evidence suggests that the members of a particular ...


13

Indeed, in the United States, employees without a written employment contract generally can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. The quickest answer would be that in cases where the employer has fired someone without due cause and they are indeed under no written contract, and their state does not protect them against such actions - and it ...


7

You cannot sell the same goods or services at different price points based on gender in the EU Council directive 2004/113/EC required members to implement local laws to "prohibit discrimination based on sex in the access to and supply of goods and services" and it "should apply to both direct discrimination and indirect discrimination." ...


6

Bostock is irrelevant. Your friend can sue under Burlington v. News Corp. Burlington answered this exact question ten years ago, using exactly the same, well-established logic used in Bostock. Burlington involved a news anchor (Burlington) who was fired after using the N-word descriptively in a staff meeting. He sued under Title VII. He argued he was being ...


5

The reason to not make up a dumb cause for firing a person is that they will argue that you are discriminating on the basis of e.g. religion, and then the two sides will present their evidence. It is highly likely that if you have a hatred of the person's religion, you will have provided them with some kind of supporting evidence in the form of your behavior ...


4

Not all jurisdictions allow you to fire without a valid reason. But even places that do, there is a lower standard of proof in civil cases. Lawsuits only require the judge or jury believe it is more likely than not that the firing was for a bad reason (unlike a criminal trial where the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”). If you hire a male employee who ...


4

This is an open question. California's Unruh Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of political affiliation. This same issue has come up previously, in a case where four neo-Nazis showed up wearing swastika pins at a German restaurant. When they refused to remove the pins, the restaurant called the police to remove them. The ...


4

No I don't see a case under Bostok there. The N-word is not associated with sex or sexuality. Bostok can't help you unless it's a sexuality case. In this case, we have a firing because someone was a white Bigot. He used the N-word, which is an insult, just as "my melamine-enhanced homie over here" shows the same sentiment towards people of color. ...


3

There are many analogous cases throughout the world, but like the petition you cite, they are not legal, they are political, e.g. the Kautokeino rebellion, the Basque conflict, Turkish-only laws in Turkey, Bantu minorities in Somalia, Jim Crow laws in the US. A legal case would be when parties file a lawsuit in some higher court, to force a government to ...


3

Keep in mind how that mechanism works. This question coming up isn't a longshot: it will definitely come up when the employee applies for unemployment benefits. The employer pays a fraction of unemployment benefits, so they have a stake. A termination for cause leaves the employee ineligible for unemployment benefits. The employee will file claiming they ...


2

EU law permits Member States to take any steps as appropriate to ensuring the full equality, in practice, between men and women. This is set out in Directive 2002/73/EC (Art. 2(8)) and in Articles 151, 156 and 157-4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article I of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789 as embodied in ...


2

What's the legality of this situation? It's unlawful and you should seek support for it. That document you linked to appears to have resources that could help you, such as support lines and counselling centres, etc. Am I being discriminated against by these landlords(companies)? I would say so. It sounds like you're being discriminated against on grounds ...


2

then why don't I make up some dumb whatever reason to fire the employee and thereby get away with discrimination? Because you have to convince a jury that the dumb reason you made up is more likely to be true than false. If this was a real obstacle, then almost all criminal convictions would be impossible. In almost all criminal cases, the prosecution has ...


1

I agree with the other upvoted answers but would just like to add a bit of perspective. I've worked for several companies located in at-will states, and even though they have the right to terminate someone without providing a reason, in practice they have all tried very hard to document real performance shortcomings. This is because they are very aware that ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible