{"title":"Intersectional discrimination and EU law: Time to revisit Parris","authors":"Erica Howard","doi":"10.1177/13582291241285336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article it is argued that the CJEU judgment in Parris needs to be revisited to recognise that intersectional discrimination is covered by the EU anti-discrimination Directives. There are several reasons for this. First, a prohibition of intersectional discrimination is now laid down in an EU anti-discrimination Directive (Directive, 2023/970/EC); second, this would fit in with developments in the EU Commission, Council and Parliament; third Parris turns on its own facts; fourth a purposive or capacious interpretation of these Directives already allows for such discrimination to be included in the Directives; fifth, the shift in CJEU case law towards a intra-group comparison for discrimination can make comparisons in intersectional discrimination cases easier. It is argued that without acknowledging that intersectional discrimination is covered by the EU anti-discrimination Directives, victims of such discrimination, like Mr Parris and others, like headscarf wearing women, might be left without a remedy when they suffer discrimination on a combination of grounds.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241285336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this article it is argued that the CJEU judgment in Parris needs to be revisited to recognise that intersectional discrimination is covered by the EU anti-discrimination Directives. There are several reasons for this. First, a prohibition of intersectional discrimination is now laid down in an EU anti-discrimination Directive (Directive, 2023/970/EC); second, this would fit in with developments in the EU Commission, Council and Parliament; third Parris turns on its own facts; fourth a purposive or capacious interpretation of these Directives already allows for such discrimination to be included in the Directives; fifth, the shift in CJEU case law towards a intra-group comparison for discrimination can make comparisons in intersectional discrimination cases easier. It is argued that without acknowledging that intersectional discrimination is covered by the EU anti-discrimination Directives, victims of such discrimination, like Mr Parris and others, like headscarf wearing women, might be left without a remedy when they suffer discrimination on a combination of grounds.