دانلود کتاب برابری، تبعیض و قانون

Suppose a local authority had a concern for retired persons, who as a group, live in isolation and lack physical activity. It resolved to offer free swimming to those of a pensionable age, at a time when the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men. When Mr and Mrs James, each aged 61, approached the turnstile, he was charged for entry, while she was admitted free. Mr James sued for direct sex discrimination. Whether the authority is liable could turn on a number of factors, including the motivation of the authority (socialisation and fitness of a particularly vulnerable group), the ‘foreground’ reason (facially neutral pension ages), or the ‘background’ reason (discriminatory pension ages). In the mix as well could be variations of the comparison. These could range from a one-to-one (a 60-year-old man compared with a 60-year-old woman), a limited group (all those aged 60–65), or men and women generally. The first two comparisons would produce an exclusive advantage/disadvantage for women and men respectively, pointing to direct discrimination. The third itself is packed with variations, ranging from those who attend the swimming pool, or in addition those who would attend but for the charge, or those in the catchment area, or men and women more generally. Any of these might demonstrate a disproportionate impact on men, and will point to indirect discrimination.