Various unions, including Amicus, challenged the government's implementation of sexuality discrimination law. In particular it was asked whether the exceptions created for churches and religious groups, being allowed to exclude gay people from employment was legitimate (r.7(3)).
Judgmentedit
Richards J held that the implementation was adequate, though it was stressed that the exceptions would be tightly construed. First, the genuine occupational requirements could apply where the employers were not satisfied an applicant met its requirements, as well as where they did not in fact. Second, it was rejected that a church group under r 7(3) could dismiss a gay cleaner, dismiss a science teacher for being a lesbian or not employ a gay person at a bookshop with holy scripts, even though people may have strong convictions. Nor could a Muslim group refuse a librarian post to someone appearing to be gay. It was ‘clear from the Parliamentary material that the exception was intended to be very narrow; and… is on its proper construction, very narrow.’ That so, because it is a derogation from the equal treatment principle. Third, there is a difference between a religious organisation, such as a faith school where there can be no discrimination, and ‘for the purposes of an organised religion’ where there can. Fourth, ‘so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion’ would be an objective rather than a subjective test under r 7(3)(b)(ii).
amicus, secretary, state, trade, industry, application, amicus, secretary, state, trade, industry, 2004, ewhc, admin, labour, case, where, number, trade, unions, challenged, government, implementation, directive, 2000, employment, equality, sexual, orientation. R on the application of Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 2004 EWHC 860 Admin is a UK labour law case where a number of trade unions challenged the government s new implementation of EU Directive 2000 78 EC in the Employment Equality Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 R Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and IndustryCourtHigh Court of JusticeDecided26 April 2004Citation s 2007 ICR 1176 2004 ELR 311 2004 EWHC 860 Admin 2004 IRLR 430 2004 Pens LR 261Court membershipJudge s sittingRichards J Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 NotesFacts editVarious unions including Amicus challenged the government s implementation of sexuality discrimination law In particular it was asked whether the exceptions created for churches and religious groups being allowed to exclude gay people from employment was legitimate r 7 3 Judgment editRichards J held that the implementation was adequate though it was stressed that the exceptions would be tightly construed First the genuine occupational requirements could apply where the employers were not satisfied an applicant met its requirements as well as where they did not in fact Second it was rejected that a church group under r 7 3 could dismiss a gay cleaner dismiss a science teacher for being a lesbian or not employ a gay person at a bookshop with holy scripts even though people may have strong convictions Nor could a Muslim group refuse a librarian post to someone appearing to be gay It was clear from the Parliamentary material that the exception was intended to be very narrow and is on its proper construction very narrow That so because it is a derogation from the equal treatment principle Third there is a difference between a religious organisation such as a faith school where there can be no discrimination and for the purposes of an organised religion where there can Fourth so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion would be an objective rather than a subjective test under r 7 3 b ii See also editUK employment discrimination law UK labour lawNotes edit Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title R Amicus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry amp oldid 1173739363, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
