Administrative law and anti-discrimination frameworks
Administrative Law and Anti-Discrimination Frameworks
Overview
Administrative Law deals with the actions and decisions of government agencies or public bodies. It ensures that such decisions are lawful, fair, and reasonable.
Anti-Discrimination Frameworks are legal provisions (statutory or common law) designed to prevent unfair treatment of individuals based on characteristics like race, gender, disability, religion, or age.
The intersection of these areas is significant because administrative decisions (such as granting licenses, benefits, employment, or immigration) must comply with anti-discrimination laws. Courts scrutinize whether public authorities have acted fairly and without unlawful discrimination.
Key Concepts in Administrative Law related to Anti-Discrimination
Legality: Public authorities must act within their legal powers.
Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice): Decisions must be made fairly.
Reasonableness: Decisions must not be irrational or arbitrary.
Non-discrimination: Decisions must not discriminate based on protected characteristics.
Case Laws Explaining the Relationship and Principles
1. R (on the application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15
Facts: A Muslim girl challenged her school’s uniform policy, which prohibited her from wearing a jilbab (a type of Islamic dress). She claimed this policy was discriminatory under the Race Relations Act.
Decision: The House of Lords held that the school’s uniform policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (school discipline) and did not amount to unlawful indirect discrimination.
Principle: This case demonstrates how administrative decisions (school policy enforcement) must balance legitimate aims against claims of discrimination, applying proportionality to assess fairness and legality.
2. R v Birmingham City Council, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] AC 1155
Facts: The Equal Opportunities Commission challenged the council's housing allocation policy that allegedly discriminated indirectly against women.
Decision: The House of Lords ruled that the council had acted unlawfully because the policy resulted in indirect discrimination and lacked justification.
Principle: This case clarified that public authorities’ policies must be scrutinized to ensure they do not result in unjustifiable indirect discrimination against protected groups.
3. R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS [2010] UKSC 15
Facts: A Jewish school’s admissions policy required applicants to prove their Jewishness in a way that was claimed to discriminate based on race.
Decision: The Supreme Court found that the admissions policy was discriminatory because it based eligibility on ethnic criteria rather than religion alone.
Principle: The case highlighted the distinction between racial and religious discrimination, emphasizing administrative decisions must avoid racial discrimination even under the guise of religion-based criteria.
4. Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 149
Facts: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dealt with laws criminalizing homosexual acts in Northern Ireland.
Decision: The Court held that the laws violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Principle: This case influenced anti-discrimination frameworks by affirming that administrative laws or policies cannot infringe upon fundamental rights by discriminating against sexual orientation.
5. R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
Facts: UNISON challenged the introduction of employment tribunal fees, arguing they impeded access to justice and disproportionately affected vulnerable groups.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled fees unlawful, stating they undermined the principle of access to justice.
Principle: This case reinforced that administrative policies (such as imposing fees) must not indirectly discriminate or disproportionately disadvantage protected groups, thus protecting equality before the law.
6. Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
Facts: A British Airways employee claimed religious discrimination for being prohibited from wearing a visible cross at work.
Decision: The ECHR found a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion), holding that the employer's policy was not proportionate.
Principle: The case illustrates how administrative decisions (including in the workplace) must respect religious freedoms and avoid unjustifiable discriminatory restrictions.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Begum v Denbigh High School (2006) | Uniform policy & religious dress | Proportionality in balancing discrimination claims |
| R v Birmingham CC, ex parte EOC (1989) | Housing policy & indirect discrimination | Public bodies must justify policies causing indirect discrimination |
| R (E) v Governing Body of JFS (2010) | School admissions & racial discrimination | Distinction between racial and religious discrimination in policies |
| Dudgeon v UK (1981) | Criminalization of homosexual acts | Protection of private life from discriminatory laws |
| R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017) | Tribunal fees & access to justice | Administrative policies must not disproportionately disadvantage protected groups |
| Eweida v UK (2013) | Religious dress at work | Right to religious freedom and proportionate limitations |
Conclusion
Administrative law and anti-discrimination frameworks work hand in hand to ensure that public bodies and administrative policies do not discriminate unlawfully. The courts have developed clear principles through these cases:
Public bodies must act within their powers and fairly.
Policies that disproportionately affect protected groups require strong justification.
Access to justice and fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and privacy, are protected against discriminatory administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments