Structural Discrimination Unrecognised: Jones V University of Manchester
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1994.tb01942.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1994 |
| Date | 01 March 1994 |
March
19941
Jones
v
University
of
Manchester
sisters and even from their own mothers. Despite this, there is still considerable
uncertainty about the importance society attaches to the blood tie, an uncertainty
reflected in judicial decision making. When the child’s
need
for knowledge of
origins is eventually recognised as being separate from his need for social
parenthood, the decision in
Re
F
may come to be viewed simply as a Luddite
refusal to face up to the implications of DNA profiling and such a ‘gooseberry
bush approach’ as unnecessary paternalism.
Structural Discrimination Unrecognised:
Jones
v
University
of
Manchester
Tamara
K.
Hervey
*
The
Decision
In
Jones
v
University ofMunchester,’
Ms Jones, aged
46,
applied for a post as a
careers adviser at Manchester University. The post was advertised for a ‘graduate,
preferably aged
27
-
35,
with varied work experience.
’
Not meeting the preferred
age requirement,
Ms
Jones was not short-listed for interview.
Ms Jones alleged that the recruitment procedure was indirectly discriminatory
on grounds of sex under section
l(l)(b)
of the Sex Discrimination Act
1975.
Ms
Jones claimed that the relevant pool for comparison was that of mature students,
that is, those aged
25
or above. She brought statistical evidence showing that
although the proportion of male mature students aged
25
to
29
was greater than
that of female mature students of that age, in the group of mature students aged
30
or over, the proportion of women was significantly greater. It was argued that the
reasons for this included the ‘historical reason,’ that many women were not given
the opportunity for which their ability qualified them
to
progress to higher
education because of parental views that such education was wasted on a girl, and
the ‘family reason,’ that many women have children in their early twenties and,
because of their family commitments, are unable to study for a University degree
until their children have reached at least school age.
The employer argued the relevant pool was that of all graduates with appropriate
experience. Within that pool, the proportions of men and women are
approximately equal, therefore no direct discrimination could be established. The
employer also contended that, even if there were indirect discrimination, it was
justified either
by
the desirability of appointing a careers adviser close in age to the
students to whom advice would be given, or by the need to have a spread of ages
within those employed in the careers department.
Ms Jones was successful before the Industrial Tribunal (IT). It was accepted that
the relevant pool was that of graduates who had obtained their degrees as mature
students, and that therefore Ms Jones’ statistical evidence showed that the age
requirement was one with which the proportion of women who could comply was
significantly smaller than the proportion of men who could comply. The IT found
*Jean
Monnet Lecturer in
EC
Law,
Department
of
Law,
University
of
Durham.
1
[1993]
IRLR
218.
0
The
Modern
Law
Review
Limited
1994
307
To continue reading
Request your trial