Remedies for discrimination in administration
Remedies for Discrimination in Administration
Types of Remedies:
Declaratory Relief:
Courts may declare that discrimination occurred, establishing a legal finding without necessarily awarding damages or other relief.
Injunctive Relief:
Orders requiring the administration to stop discriminatory practices or take affirmative steps to eliminate discrimination.
Compensatory Damages:
Monetary compensation for economic loss (lost wages, benefits) and non-economic harm (emotional distress).
Reinstatement or Promotion:
Ordering reinstatement to a job position or promotion if denial was due to discrimination.
Back Pay:
Compensation for lost earnings due to discriminatory suspension, demotion, or dismissal.
Policy Changes and Affirmative Action:
Courts may require changes in administration policies to prevent recurrence, including affirmative action programs.
Case Law with Detailed Explanation:
1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Green, a Black man, was denied employment allegedly due to racial discrimination. The case laid out a framework for proving discrimination.
Remedy:
Though this case primarily set the burden of proof framework for discrimination cases, it established that if discrimination is proven, remedies include reinstatement, back pay, and damages.
Explanation:
McDonnell Douglas created a burden-shifting framework used in administrative discrimination cases: plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, then the employer must show a legitimate reason, after which the plaintiff can prove that reason is pretextual. Once discrimination is established, courts can grant remedies.
2. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
African American employees challenged job requirements that disproportionately excluded them, constituting indirect discrimination.
Remedy:
The Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and ordered Duke Power to eliminate discriminatory requirements and awarded back pay.
Explanation:
This case expanded remedies for indirect discrimination (disparate impact), mandating administration to revise neutral policies that disproportionately harm protected groups.
3. Mandla v. Dowell Lee (1983) — UK House of Lords
Facts:
A Sikh boy was excluded from a school for refusing to remove his turban, claimed as religious discrimination.
Remedy:
The court ruled in favor of Mandla, ordering the school to allow the turban as part of religious observance, effectively granting injunctive relief.
Explanation:
This case shows that remedies in administrative discrimination include orders to cease discriminatory practices and accommodate religious or cultural differences.
4. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
A Muslim woman was denied employment because she wore a hijab, which was against the company’s dress code.
Remedy:
The Court held in favor of the employee, reinforcing that employers must reasonably accommodate religious practices unless they can show undue hardship.
Explanation:
The ruling emphasized injunctive relief and potential compensatory damages when employers fail to accommodate religious practices in administration.
5. Donnelly v. UK (1998) — European Court of Human Rights
Facts:
A public employee claimed discrimination based on national origin and religion in public service.
Remedy:
The Court found a violation of discrimination protections under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and ordered remedies including compensation and changes in policy.
Explanation:
Shows the role of supranational courts in providing remedies for discrimination in public administration.
6. R (on the application of Begum) v. Denbigh High School (2006) — UK House of Lords
Facts:
A Muslim student was banned from wearing the jilbab (full-length Islamic dress) in school.
Remedy:
While the court upheld the school's uniform policy, the case illustrates the balancing of administrative rules with rights, and remedies often involve accommodation unless a legitimate administrative aim justifies restriction.
7. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
The San Francisco city administration applied laundry permits in a racially discriminatory manner.
Remedy:
The Court held the administration’s actions violated the Equal Protection Clause and ordered injunctive relief and equal treatment.
Explanation:
One of the earliest cases affirming that discriminatory administration violates constitutional rights, mandating courts to intervene with corrective remedies.
Summary of Remedies Illustrated by These Cases:
Reinstatement and Back Pay: To restore victims financially and professionally.
Injunctive Relief: To stop discriminatory administrative policies and enforce accommodation.
Compensatory Damages: To address harm caused by discrimination.
Policy Reforms: Courts often mandate changes in administrative rules to prevent future discrimination.
Burden-Shifting Framework: Facilitates proving discrimination to unlock remedies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments