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 ...


40

The EEOC web site has much information on this topic including summaries of close cases that have been decided in court. To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential ...


38

The law doesn't distinguish between two Christians with divergent beliefs, or between an atheist and a Christian (obviously with divergent beliefs). The law simply does not care what religion you have, or whether you have one. The law just says "follow the law!". The complication is that part of the First Amendment which says that the law is to be neutral ...


33

Anti-discrimination laws apply to certain protected classes only. Homelessness (real or assumed) is not one of them, so it is perfectly legal to bar such people from your premises. It is also perfectly legal to bar people with red hair (assuming this is not indirect discrimination against certain racial groups). Nobody is required to serve everybody who ...


24

Homelessness is a protected class in some jurisdictions. Rhode Island and Illinois, for instance, have each adopted a "Homeless Bill of Rights" establishing the following guarantees: (1) the ability to use and move freely in public spaces, including public sidewalks, parks, transportation, and buildings, among other spaces; (2) equal treatment by ...


16

In the US what is/are the legal definitions of 'workplace'? Absent a statutory or contractual definition, the plain meaning is adopted "unless doing so would result in absurd, unintended consequences", Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal.5th 522 (2018). Pulaski v. California OSHA, 90 CalRptr.2d 54, 69 (1999) points out that "'[w]orkplace' is commonly understood as ...


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 ...


14

As cited by @xuhdev, discrimination on the basis of marital status is prohibited in Colorado. And, even though age is not on the list, the couple could claim that you discriminate them based on their marital status, whether current or would-be, and whether related to their age or not. Note that the reason why you discriminate is irrelevant: whether you do ...


13

This is explicitly prohibited under 42 USC 2000e-2(c) (c)It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization— (1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or ...


7

This question fundamentally is not about religion in any way. Based on your question, Christine would not be discriminating against people from Ann's own sect, only against transgender people. If Ann has reason to believe that Christine will behave in a discriminatory way to transgender people, Ann can legitimately exclude her to prevent harm to other ...


7

At the federal level, employment discrimination as prohibited here is at its core a tort rather than a crime. Probably the most pertinent first part of the law is Subpart B, which encompasses procedures. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) may receive allegations of a violation, and there is a procedure for deciding on the merits of the case. ...


7

Neither a tort nor a crime Torts are civil wrongs. Crimes are offences against the state which are deemed criminal. Both have roots in common law although in many jurisdictions they have been codified. The cause of action for unlawful discrimination is statute law. That is, it is what it is because the statute says it is. The offence against the state is a ...


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

In your hypothetical situation, I'm not aware of any law that prohibits denial of service merely because of age. (But as other answers show, marital status discrimination might and might not be relevant here. If there is martial status discrimination, then the discrimination would be illegal.) Age for places of public accommodation is not a protected class ...


6

Was the individual prevented from entering because he was homeless or because he smelled bad? It seems that conclusions about the individual's living arrangements may not be the most relevant factor in this situation. From the description of the situation, it appears that the restaurant employees were concerned about an offensive odor, which is not a ...


5

From NYC website (creed): Creed refers to a set of moral or ethical beliefs and the practices and observances associated with those beliefs. Although creed includes traditional religious beliefs, it also incorporates belief systems that may not be expressed by an organized religious group. Based on the examples shown on the website, it doesn't seem like ...


5

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 ...


4

What discrimination? As explained in Conflict between a religious belief that accounts for the existence of transgender people vs. one that doesn't the Constitutional protection of the Free Exercise Clause applies to the exercise of a deeply held belief (religious or not). So, let's accept that a person believes that certain sexual practices or gender ...


4

I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a clear-cut case of religious discrimination to me. You say in a follow-up comment, "I think it can't be religious discrimination because the company owner is also a Christian." But no, that's not how the law works. Discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal no matter how close or far apart the people involved ...


4

The employer might be liable for a discrimination claim, under the doctrine of disparate impact. See Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc and references cited therein. The idea is that an employer can be liable absent proof of intentional discrimination when a practice disproportionately affects ...


4

how does hiring only women comply with our Civil Rights Act (which outlaws discrimination based on sex)? It is compliant. The Civil Rights Act includes an exception where the discrimination or limitation based on sex (or any other protected category) "is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment". That exception is located at the end of 42 USC ...


4

As an interviewer and a hiring manager, I can safely say that you can be rejected for a position for many reasons, even if you meet all the criteria - there may simply be someone better than you that they have also interviewed. Being rejected when meeting the criteria does not necessarily mean you were discriminated against, and in order to successfully ...


4

Just to be clear, the initial linked Q&A does not show that bakers in certain US states can legally refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, is concludes that federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Colorado law does. So in Colorado, you would be open to a discrimination lawsuit, if you specifically refuse to ...


4

There are two kinds of evidence for discrimination. The primary evidence is direct, that is, statements by an employer, for example "We need to make sure not to hire a ___ for this position". The act of hiring a person that has a certain demographic property is never evidence for discrimination, because discrimination law treats all races and religions (etc) ...


4

Under 42 USC 2000a(a): All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. So a business may be ...


4

Can a shopowner in Thailand ban someone from entering their shop on the grounds of their citizenship? The first tweet, explains the context properly: I’m at my local hospital this afternoon to get a medical certificate. My work permit expires soon and so I need to run around getting all the documents in order. At the hospital they wanted to check my ...


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. ...


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 ...


3

Can a prospective employer require you to pay to take a test as part of an interview? That is unlawful. Section 10 of the BC Employment Standards Act prohibits a person to "request, charge or receive, directly or indirectly, from a person seeking employment a payment for (a) employing or obtaining employment for the person seeking employment". See also ...


3

There is no constitutional right to be free from facts that don't make you happy. A store cannot refuse you service because of your religion, or your lack of religion (federal anti-discrimination laws, "public accommodations" which is a technical term that refers to stores, hotels and so on, where race, color, religion, or national origin are the protected ...


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