Editorial
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| Author | Susan Easton |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1358229116682112 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Susan Easton
Editorial 16(4)
In this issue Terpstra and Honore´e discuss the results of their content analysis of federal court
cases, examining discrimination litigation in the private, and public sectors, including Federal
government, State and Local government sector organisations. The analysis seeks to discover
whether there are differences in the type of employment discrimination claims across the
different sectors and their outcomes. The authors found that there were significant differences
in the types of discrimination claims and outcomes in the different sectors. Race discrimina-
tion claims were common in all sectors, but sex discrimination claims were more common in
private sector. There were more disability claims in the Federal, State and Local government
sectors than in the private sector, while the number of age claims was similar in all three
sectors. The chances of claimants winning overall were the same in the three sectors but the
case outcome varied according to the type of claim. The chances of the race discrimination
claimant winning in the Federal sector were lower than other sectors. For sex and age
discrimination claims, the odds were lower in the private sector. For disability discrimination
claims the odds were approximately the same in all sectors. The implications of these differ-
ences are considered, as well as ways of reducing the volume of claims and the associated
costs, for example, by reviewing performance appraisal methods and promotion procedures.
Engwall discusses how disabilities are conceptualised by complainants of disability
discrimination. She reviewed 485 disability related complaints filed with the Equality
Ombudsman in Sweden in 2012 and found three different themes, namely, environmental
obstacles, principally inaccessibility, second, medical diagnoses and finally complaints
which cite multiple discriminatory grounds, including disability. These variations she
argues, may reflect the need to use different approaches in different contexts. Engwall
also notes the difficulties individuals may face in filing complaints.
Durojaye considers the historical and cultural context of virginity testing in Southern
Africa, focusing principally on South Africa. The arguments which have been used to
justify this practice are critically examined. The issue highlights the problem of striking
a balance between adherence to cultural practices and commitment to human rights
standards. These human rights implications are considered in relation to women’s
rights to autonomy and dignity and to non-discrimination, as this practice clearly
reinforces gender inequality. While sections 30 and 31 of the South African Constitution
guarantee the right to culture, Durojaye argues that this right cannot be implemented
in a way which is incompatible with provisions of the Bill of Rights.
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2016, Vol. 16(4) 199
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229116682112
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
To continue reading
Request your trial