Comparative Study Of Anti-Discrimination Laws
1. Overview of Anti-Discrimination Laws
Definition:
Anti-discrimination laws prohibit unfair treatment of individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, religion, disability, age, or sexual orientation. These laws operate in employment, education, public services, and other spheres.
Key Themes in Anti-Discrimination Laws:
Equality of Opportunity: Ensuring access to employment, education, and services without bias.
Protection Against Harassment: Safeguarding against hostile or offensive behavior based on protected characteristics.
Affirmative Action or Positive Measures: Some laws allow remedial measures to promote equality for historically marginalized groups.
Enforcement Mechanisms: Civil remedies, administrative agencies, and criminal penalties in certain cases.
2. Comparative Legal Frameworks
| Country / Region | Law / Act | Protected Classes | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Civil Rights Act, 1964; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 1990 | Race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability | Equal employment, public accommodations, enforcement via EEOC |
| India | Constitution of India (Articles 14, 15, 16); Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Religion, caste, sex, race, disability | Prohibits discrimination in public sphere, employment, education; affirmative action through reservations |
| UK | Equality Act, 2010 | Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, race, religion/belief, sex, sexual orientation | Consolidates anti-discrimination laws, covers employment, services, and harassment |
| International | UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) | Race, ethnicity, national origin | Obligates states to eliminate racial discrimination and report compliance |
3. Key Case Laws and Detailed Explanations
Case 1: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) – USA
Facts:
Segregation in public schools based on race was challenged. African American students were denied admission to white schools.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal.
This case established that state-sponsored racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Principle:
Foundational U.S. case recognizing racial discrimination as unconstitutional in public education, influencing all anti-discrimination jurisprudence.
Case 2: Civil Rights Act Enforcement – Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) – USA
Facts:
Duke Power Company required a high school diploma and intelligence test for certain jobs. Black employees challenged the requirements as discriminatory.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court ruled that employment practices must be related to job performance and not disproportionately exclude minorities.
Introduced the doctrine of disparate impact, which does not require intent to discriminate but looks at the effect of policies.
Principle:
Anti-discrimination law covers indirect or systemic discrimination, not only explicit bias.
Case 3: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 – India
Facts:
A social worker challenged sexual harassment at the workplace in absence of specific legislation.
Key Points:
Supreme Court of India laid down Vishaka Guidelines, treating sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination under Article 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Employers were directed to implement preventive measures and complaint mechanisms.
Principle:
Recognized workplace sexual harassment as discrimination, forming the basis of later legislation (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013).
Case 4: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Commission Case), AIR 1993 SC 477 – India
Facts:
Challenge to government quotas (reservations) for backward classes in employment.
Key Points:
Supreme Court upheld affirmative action but limited it to 50% quota to maintain merit and equality.
Introduced the idea of “creamy layer” to exclude well-off individuals from reservations.
Principle:
Indian anti-discrimination law balances equality with affirmative action to remedy historical disadvantages.
Case 5: Equal Pay Act & Sex Discrimination – Macarthys Ltd v. Smith [1980] ICR 127 – UK
Facts:
A female employee claimed she was paid less than her male predecessor for the same work.
Key Points:
Court held that paying a woman less than a man for identical work constitutes sex discrimination.
Reinforced Equal Pay Act 1970, later incorporated into the Equality Act 2010.
Principle:
Employment discrimination includes pay disparities based on gender. Legal framework protects equal remuneration.
Case 6: R (Elias) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 1293 – UK
Facts:
A claimant challenged military recruitment policies that indirectly excluded disabled candidates.
Key Points:
Court examined indirect discrimination under UK law.
Highlighted the need to show proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims when policies disadvantage protected groups.
Principle:
Modern anti-discrimination law protects against both direct and indirect forms of discrimination.
Case 7: CERD Case – Timokhina v. Russia, CERD/C/70/D/29/2003 (2007)
Facts:
Complaint of racial discrimination against Roma community in housing and public services in Russia.
Key Points:
UN CERD Committee found that states have positive obligations to prevent discrimination and ensure equal treatment.
Recommended remedies and compensation.
Principle:
International law complements domestic law in combating discrimination and requires active state measures.
4. Comparative Insights
| Aspect | USA | India | UK | International |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct vs Indirect Discrimination | Recognized (disparate treatment and disparate impact) | Mostly direct, some indirect (e.g., affirmative action limits) | Recognized (direct & indirect discrimination under Equality Act) | Recognized (CERD, CEDAW) |
| Affirmative Action | Limited (some state programs) | Constitutional mandate (reservations) | Limited | Encouraged through UN conventions |
| Protected Classes | Race, sex, disability, religion, national origin | Caste, religion, sex, disability, race | Age, disability, race, sex, sexual orientation | Race, ethnicity, national origin |
| Enforcement | EEOC, courts | Courts, National Commissions, administrative bodies | Employment tribunals, courts | CERD committee, reporting obligations |
✅ Summary:
Anti-discrimination laws worldwide share the goal of ensuring equality and preventing unfair treatment, but methods vary:
The U.S. emphasizes constitutional equality and workplace impact analysis.
India balances constitutional equality with affirmative action for historically marginalized groups.
UK uses comprehensive legislation consolidating multiple protections and recognizes indirect discrimination.
International law imposes obligations on states to actively prevent discrimination and ensure remedies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments