Editorial
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
| Author | Susan Easton |
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229115583754 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Susan Easton
Editorial 15(3)
In this issue, Michael Connolly considers the question of whether employee-referral
schemes may discriminate as they tend to perpetuate existing gender and racial profiles
because employees are more likely to recommend a person from the same ethnic or gen-
der group. He considers the way litigation might be brought and dealt with by the courts
in the United Kingdom. Connolly also considers how the issue has been addressed in the
US jurisprudence and concludes that referral schemes do run the risk of discrimination if
unregulated. He reports on the results of a survey of employers, of varying size, using
such schemes. Existing safeguards found in the schemes reviewed are unlikely to prevent
discrimination, he argues, but he advocates monitoring such schemes to identify any pat-
terns that may be symptomatic of discriminatory practice.
Chris Monaghan reviews the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hounga v.
Allen (2014) UKSC 47, which dealt with the question of whether a person who is an
illegal immigrant could bring a race discrimination case for dismissal against the person
who arranged her entry into the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal thought not and
that allowing the case to proceed would condone her illegal conduct and those who assist
illegal migrants to enter the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court disagreed and argued
that the public interest in protecting vulnerable migrants outweighed the public interest
in applying the defence of illegality. It also noted that there was no link between the
illegality and her claim for race discrimination. Monaghan welcomes this decision, as
it will encourage victims to bring discrimination claims.
Mirko Garasic and Shay Keinan discuss the controversial question of whether boy-
cotting Israeli academia is discriminatory and anti-Semitic, with reference to the recent
controversial Australian case where an academic rejected an application from an
Israeli scholar for a visiting post in order to make a statement regarding the policies
of the Israeli government. A discrimination case was initially brought by an interna-
tional Jewish organization but not pursued, and the authors consider the issues raised
by this case and what should have happened if it had reached court. They argue that
rejecting the applicant in this case does constitute discrimination at least on the
grounds of nationality and may also be seen as anti-Semitic if an Arab Israeli would
have been permitted to apply. They also consider the argument that the boycott is only
against Israeli institutions, but as they point out, it is difficult for an academic to oper-
ate outside an institutional framework.
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2015, Vol. 15(3) 147
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229115583754
jdi.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial