Editorial
| Published date | 01 June 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/135822910901000201 |
| Date | 01 June 2009 |
International Journal
of
Discrimination and the Law, 2009,
Vol.
10,
p.
55
1358-229112009 $10
© 2009 A B Academic Publishers. Printed
in
Great Britain
EDITORIAL
55
In
this issue the primary focus is
on
dimensions
of
discrimination which
have received relatively little attention, namely discrimination against
those with psychosocial impairments and idiosyncracies. Richard Sahlin
considers the treatment
by
universities
of
faculty members with
psychosocial impairments, comparing the relevant law
of
the United
States, United Kingdom and Sweden. Sahlin discusses the problems
which may arise in such cases, the challenges for employers and staff
and considers how anti-discrimination law has negotiated these issues, to
deal fairly with employees so that they may progress
in
their academic
careers, while preserving academic integrity and avoiding dispropor-
tionate burdens on employers. Possible practical measures are suggested
to address these problems.
Dhruv Sharma focuses on the specific problems faced
by
employers
in dealing with eccentricity as there is some evidence that employees
with higher eccentricity quotients
may
face an increased risk
of
discrim-
ination. Sharma approaches the issue from the standpoint
of
diversity
research, focusing specifically
on
the situation in the United States.
Strategies for combating discrimination and protecting such employees
are explored including engaging in further research on relevant statis-
tical analysis to detect the risks
of
discrimination.
Michael Connolly considers the implications
of
the recent decisions
in Redfearn v Serco (t/a West Yorkshire Transport Service) [2006] EWCA
659 and
Redfearn
v Serco and
English
v
Sanderson
[2008] EWCA 1421.
In the former case an employee was dismissed for being a member
of
the British National Party and the issue arose
of
whether this can be
treated as a dismissal on racial grounds. In the latter case the issue in
question was whether harassment
of
an individual
by
innuendos
suggesting the person was homosexual can be seen as harassment on
grounds
of
sexual orientation when the person is heterosexual and the
harassers know that he is heterosexual. Both cases are problematic
if
a
literal interpretation
of
the relevant legislation is adopted and clearly the
courts took a purposive approach based on policy rather than a literal
approach. In English v Sanderson this was partly to avoid the situation
where an individual is forced to reveal his sexual orientation in order to
obtain a remedy. The implications
of
these cases for the definition
of
direct discrimination and for the Framework Directive are considered.
To continue reading
Request your trial