Editorial
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1358229119827125 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Editorial 19(1)
In this issue Margaret Downie discusses how UK law treats equal pay claims based on
gender differently from equal pay claims based on the other protected characteristics of
age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and
maternity, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. As the gender pay gap in the
UK is substantial, attention has been focused on this, with less attention given to pay
inequality due to the other protected characteristics. Yet the research shows significant
gaps for the major ethnic minority and religious groups and for those with disabilities. As
Downie observes, gender claimants have a wider range of comparators available and the
remedies are superior in many cases. Downie examines the relevant jurisprudence of the
domestic courts and the European Court of Justice and highlights the tensions between
their approaches. If a separate system for pay claims based on gender is deemed neces-
sary, Downie argues, then there should be separate schemes for the other characteristics
and a consistent regime should be applied to all equal pay claims.
Stephen Bunbury reviews the UK’s approach to addressing disability discrimination
and discusses the limitations of the medical model of discrimination underpinning UK
law, in which disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment which affects the
individual’s ability to carry out everyday activities. Bunbury argues in favour of a social
model, which focuses on social exclusion and the way society responds to impairment,
rather than the limitations imposed by the impairment. This social model arguably would
be more effective in challenging attitudes towards people with disabilities and offer a
greater prospect of reducing inequality.
Ayan Guha considers the effectiveness and impact of recent anti-caste legislation in
India, namely the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989, which was designed to prevent and deter atrocities against scheduled castes and
tribes, by imposing stronger penalties than available under the existing law. However,
the Supreme Court has imposed new procedural safeguards which, it has been argued,
dilute its impact. Guha disc usses the debate on the Court’s d ecision in the case of
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra, where a criminal prosecution
under the Act was quashed by the Court, leading to widespread anger and protests by
Dalit groups.
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2019, Vol. 19(1) 3
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1358229119827125
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
To continue reading
Request your trial