Discrimination complaint adjudication
⚖️ Discrimination Complaint Adjudication
🔹 What Is Discrimination Complaint Adjudication?
Discrimination complaint adjudication refers to the legal and administrative process used to resolve complaints of discriminatory treatment, typically based on:
Race
Gender
Disability
Religion
Sexual orientation
Age
National origin, etc.
Common Legal Frameworks:
Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act (1964) – Prohibits employment discrimination.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Equal Pay Act
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
EU Equal Treatment Directives
Constitutional protections in various jurisdictions
National Human Rights or Equality Laws (e.g., UK Equality Act 2010, Canada's CHRA)
Adjudication may occur through:
Administrative agencies (e.g., EEOC, Human Rights Tribunals)
Courts (when appeals or direct claims are filed)
Arbitration or internal grievance mechanisms
📚 Landmark Case Law: Detailed Examples
1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – USA (U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Green, a Black employee and civil rights activist, was laid off by McDonnell Douglas and later denied rehire. He alleged racial discrimination.
Issue:
What burden-shifting framework applies in employment discrimination cases under Title VII?
Ruling:
The Court established the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test, which remains a cornerstone of discrimination adjudication.
Framework:
Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action.
Plaintiff must show that the reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Significance:
Provides a structured evidentiary approach to adjudicating discrimination cases.
Used widely in both administrative and judicial reviews.
2. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) – USA (U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Duke Power required high school diplomas and intelligence tests for job applicants, which disproportionately disqualified Black candidates.
Issue:
Do facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately impact minorities violate Title VII?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that practices with a disparate impact—even if neutral—are discriminatory unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Significance:
Established the disparate impact doctrine.
Influential in administrative agencies’ interpretation of systemic discrimination.
3. Meiorin Case – British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU [1999] 3 SCR 3 – Canada
Facts:
A female firefighter was dismissed after failing a physical fitness test introduced after she was hired. She challenged it as sex-based discrimination.
Issue:
Does the physical fitness standard constitute indirect discrimination?
Ruling:
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled the test discriminatory and created the Meiorin test for assessing bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR).
Meiorin Test Criteria:
Standard must be adopted for a valid purpose.
It must be reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose.
It must be impossible to accommodate the affected person without undue hardship.
Significance:
A foundational case in Canadian human rights adjudication.
Influences how administrative tribunals evaluate discrimination complaints and reasonable accommodation.
4. Coleman v. Attridge Law [2012] CJEU C-303/06 – European Union Court of Justice
Facts:
Ms. Coleman was treated unfairly by her employer due to her caring responsibilities for her disabled son. She claimed discrimination by association under the EU Equal Treatment Directive.
Issue:
Does discrimination "by association" with a disabled person fall under EU non-discrimination law?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that indirect discrimination by association violates the EU Framework Directive 2000/78/EC.
Significance:
Expanded protections in the EU to include associative discrimination.
Important for adjudicators evaluating discrimination beyond the individual’s protected characteristics.
5. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) – USA
Facts:
Ann Hopkins was denied partnership at Price Waterhouse. Partners commented she should “walk, talk, and dress more femininely.”
Issue:
Is gender stereotyping a form of sex discrimination under Title VII?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court ruled that gender stereotyping is unlawful discrimination, and that mixed-motive cases (where both legitimate and discriminatory reasons exist) are actionable.
Significance:
Extended the interpretation of sex discrimination to include stereotyping.
Provided framework for mixed-motive discrimination adjudication.
6. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) – USA (U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Same-sex couples challenged state bans on same-sex marriage.
Issue:
Do bans on same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that such bans are discriminatory, and that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry.
Significance:
Landmark constitutional anti-discrimination ruling.
Influences administrative adjudication where sexual orientation is a factor (e.g., in government benefits, housing, and employment).
7. Mandla v. Dowell Lee [1983] UKHL 7 – United Kingdom (House of Lords)
Facts:
A Sikh boy was denied admission to a school because he wore a turban, violating the school’s uniform policy.
Issue:
Was the policy indirectly discriminatory on grounds of ethnic origin?
Ruling:
Yes. The House of Lords found that Sikhs constitute an ethnic group and the policy indirectly discriminated against them.
Significance:
Extended protections under the Race Relations Act 1976.
Frequently cited in adjudication of indirect discrimination cases in the UK.
8. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015) – USA
Facts:
Abercrombie refused to hire a Muslim woman because her hijab violated its "Look Policy," even though she didn’t explicitly request religious accommodation.
Issue:
Can an employer be liable for religious discrimination without explicit notice from the applicant?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court ruled that actual knowledge of the need for accommodation is not required if the employer’s decision was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodation.
Significance:
Clarified that motive, not knowledge, is the key factor in Title VII religious discrimination.
Important for how administrative bodies evaluate failure-to-accommodate claims.
🧠 Key Legal Doctrines in Discrimination Adjudication
| Doctrine | Originating Case | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Burden-Shifting Framework | McDonnell Douglas v. Green | Structure for proving discrimination via inference |
| Disparate Impact | Griggs v. Duke Power | Neutral policies that disproportionately affect protected groups |
| BFOQ/Meiorin Test | Meiorin (Canada) | Justifying discriminatory standards via necessity and accommodation |
| Mixed Motive | Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins | Allows partial discrimination claims |
| Associative Discrimination | Coleman v. Attridge Law | Discrimination due to association with protected persons |
| Indirect Discrimination | Mandla v. Dowell Lee | Neutral rules that have unequal effects |
| Failure to Accommodate | EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch | Liability without explicit request for accommodation |
📌 Summary
Discrimination complaint adjudication involves:
Multiple legal routes: statutory, constitutional, administrative.
Multiple jurisdictions and tribunals: human rights commissions, labor boards, federal courts.
Use of burden-shifting and reasonable accommodation frameworks.
Evaluation of both intentional and unintentional discrimination.
Increasing recognition of intersectional, indirect, and associative discrimination.
RELATED Blog
0 comments