header-logo header-logo

25 September 2008
Issue: 7338 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Good intentions?

What next for Cardiff Women's Aid? Chris Milsom reports

While discriminatory job advertisements have long been regarded as unlawful, only the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) can bring claims against their authors or publishers; individuals are currently barred from doing so. The justification for this is that an advertisement can only ever constitute an intent to discriminate rather than an act.

It may well have been decided that an advertisement for a “black or Asian woman” information centre worker for Cardiff 's Women's Aid, placed in the Guardian on 19 August 1992, was lawful under s 38 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976). However, the view of the Employment Apppeal Tribunal (EAT) in Cardiff Women's Aid v Hartup [1994] IRLR 390 was that any such lawful defence was “not something for us to decide” (per Judge Levy QC at para 8). Nor did it matter whether Hartup had applied for the job or not: “We do not think that it is necessary to decide on this point in the context of the decision we have

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll