Pub Date : 2024-04-15DOI: 10.1177/13582291241247734
Khomotso Rosina Malatjie, Grace Mbajiorgu
Sexual harassment is not a new phenomenon in South Africa. The continued existence of sexual harassment in the workplace specifically targeted at female employees undermines the constitutional rights to equality, human dignity, privacy, physical and psychological integrity, and fair labour practices. Against this backdrop, this article examines the different contributory factors that exacerbate or provide an enabling environment for sexual harassment to persist namely; gender inequality, sexist attitudes, and inefficient grievance procedures. Using an in-depth analysis of literature scholarly works, government reports, and legislative frameworks aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, and the selected jurisprudence of the courts, this article scrutinises the phenomenon of sexual harassment as a gendered harm. It evaluates whether there are adequate measures aimed at assisting victims of sexual harassment and gender inequalities in South Africa. Finally, in its conclusion, the article argues that, for labour legislation to efficiently address the prevalence of sexual harassment it should adopt a threefold function namely to address sexual harassment as a form of an unfair labour practice, gender discrimination and psychosocial harm.
{"title":"Sexual harassment as a gender inequality and a form of workplace discrimination: A South African perspective","authors":"Khomotso Rosina Malatjie, Grace Mbajiorgu","doi":"10.1177/13582291241247734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241247734","url":null,"abstract":"Sexual harassment is not a new phenomenon in South Africa. The continued existence of sexual harassment in the workplace specifically targeted at female employees undermines the constitutional rights to equality, human dignity, privacy, physical and psychological integrity, and fair labour practices. Against this backdrop, this article examines the different contributory factors that exacerbate or provide an enabling environment for sexual harassment to persist namely; gender inequality, sexist attitudes, and inefficient grievance procedures. Using an in-depth analysis of literature scholarly works, government reports, and legislative frameworks aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, and the selected jurisprudence of the courts, this article scrutinises the phenomenon of sexual harassment as a gendered harm. It evaluates whether there are adequate measures aimed at assisting victims of sexual harassment and gender inequalities in South Africa. Finally, in its conclusion, the article argues that, for labour legislation to efficiently address the prevalence of sexual harassment it should adopt a threefold function namely to address sexual harassment as a form of an unfair labour practice, gender discrimination and psychosocial harm.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140600221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-23DOI: 10.1177/13582291241241505
Achas K Burin, Shreya Atrey
On 14 February 2024, the High Court upheld the decision of the Bristol County Court in University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart. Ms Abrahart, a physics undergraduate, took her own life in April 2018, the morning before she was meant to deliver an oral presentation. The claim brought by Ms Abrahart’s father was that in failing to remove or adjust the requirement for oral assessments, the University had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The High Court upheld the discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 while dismissing the claim in negligence on the basis that the University did not owe Ms Abrahart a common law duty of care. This note discusses the contrasting moves made by the High Court in, on the one hand, lowering the bar for finding a breach of the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty, and on the other hand, raising the bar for finding an assessment method to be a ‘competence standard’ set by universities. Although arising in relation to the very specific facts of this case, the implications of the ruling in Abrahart are far reaching.
{"title":"Unleashing the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty: University of Bristol v Abrahart (EHRC intervening) [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)","authors":"Achas K Burin, Shreya Atrey","doi":"10.1177/13582291241241505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241241505","url":null,"abstract":"On 14 February 2024, the High Court upheld the decision of the Bristol County Court in University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart. Ms Abrahart, a physics undergraduate, took her own life in April 2018, the morning before she was meant to deliver an oral presentation. The claim brought by Ms Abrahart’s father was that in failing to remove or adjust the requirement for oral assessments, the University had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The High Court upheld the discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 while dismissing the claim in negligence on the basis that the University did not owe Ms Abrahart a common law duty of care. This note discusses the contrasting moves made by the High Court in, on the one hand, lowering the bar for finding a breach of the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty, and on the other hand, raising the bar for finding an assessment method to be a ‘competence standard’ set by universities. Although arising in relation to the very specific facts of this case, the implications of the ruling in Abrahart are far reaching.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140197436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-13DOI: 10.1177/13582291241237987
Daryl WJ Yang
Article 25(e) of the CRPD obliges State Parties to “prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance… which shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner”. Equal access to health insurance is critical in ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. However, the scope and substance of Article 25(e) have not been examined in existing scholarship on the CRPD. Standing at the intersection of international human rights law, disability studies and insurance law, this article fills the lacuna by offering a balanced interpretation of Article 25(e) that aims to strike a balance between actuarial fairness and the CRPD’s prohibition against all forms of disability discrimination. Greater clarity in the interpretation of Article 25(e) would therefore assist State Parties in properly complying with their obligations under the CRPD. Civil society, including disabled people and their representative organizations, would also be empowered to hold their governments to account where the laws and policies in the country have fallen short of what is expected under Article 25(e).
{"title":"Disability discrimination in the provision of health insurance: Article 25(e) of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities","authors":"Daryl WJ Yang","doi":"10.1177/13582291241237987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241237987","url":null,"abstract":"Article 25(e) of the CRPD obliges State Parties to “prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance… which shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner”. Equal access to health insurance is critical in ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. However, the scope and substance of Article 25(e) have not been examined in existing scholarship on the CRPD. Standing at the intersection of international human rights law, disability studies and insurance law, this article fills the lacuna by offering a balanced interpretation of Article 25(e) that aims to strike a balance between actuarial fairness and the CRPD’s prohibition against all forms of disability discrimination. Greater clarity in the interpretation of Article 25(e) would therefore assist State Parties in properly complying with their obligations under the CRPD. Civil society, including disabled people and their representative organizations, would also be empowered to hold their governments to account where the laws and policies in the country have fallen short of what is expected under Article 25(e).","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140155648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-19DOI: 10.1177/13582291241229167
James Hand
This legislative note considers the widespread changes to the Equality Act 2010 which have been made or are set to be made in 2024. These are predominantly but not exclusively as a result of Brexit and the effect of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and see indirect effect give way to express statutory provisions. The breadth of the changes span: aspects of the definitions of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination and the protected characteristic of disability; the unlawful acts of discrimination (regarding discriminatory public statements) and harassment (introducing positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment of employees); changes to the equal pay provisions.
{"title":"The Equality Act 2010 - changes in 2024 including Brexit-related codification","authors":"James Hand","doi":"10.1177/13582291241229167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241229167","url":null,"abstract":"This legislative note considers the widespread changes to the Equality Act 2010 which have been made or are set to be made in 2024. These are predominantly but not exclusively as a result of Brexit and the effect of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and see indirect effect give way to express statutory provisions. The breadth of the changes span: aspects of the definitions of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination and the protected characteristic of disability; the unlawful acts of discrimination (regarding discriminatory public statements) and harassment (introducing positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment of employees); changes to the equal pay provisions.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139612306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-30DOI: 10.1177/13582291231199371
Charlotte Bendall, Gemma Mitchell
Shared Parental Leave has the potential to tackle a traditional gendered binary of roles within the family, by encouraging more men to care. Such legal provisions can operate to shape behaviour, both in terms of what they permit practically, but also from a normative perspective, conveying ideas around the best way to perform ‘family.’ However, placing particular focus on the latter, we assert that Shared Parental Leave does not speak to working-class parents. We initially consider whether the ‘heteronormative’ family may, in itself, be a middle-class problem, before highlighting the incompatibility of legislative ambitions of ‘equal parenting’ with working-class ways of living. ‘Equal parenting,’ as embodied within the legislation, imposes ideals that sit at odds with working-class people’s attitudes, whilst assuming a two-parent family which is often incongruous with working-class family forms. Ultimately, we favour a more holistic approach towards breaking down ‘heteronormative’ notions of women’s and men’s roles, to enable people to make more meaningful choices about their lives that are not constrained by gender.
{"title":"The shared parental leave framework: Failing to fit working-class families?","authors":"Charlotte Bendall, Gemma Mitchell","doi":"10.1177/13582291231199371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231199371","url":null,"abstract":"Shared Parental Leave has the potential to tackle a traditional gendered binary of roles within the family, by encouraging more men to care. Such legal provisions can operate to shape behaviour, both in terms of what they permit practically, but also from a normative perspective, conveying ideas around the best way to perform ‘family.’ However, placing particular focus on the latter, we assert that Shared Parental Leave does not speak to working-class parents. We initially consider whether the ‘heteronormative’ family may, in itself, be a middle-class problem, before highlighting the incompatibility of legislative ambitions of ‘equal parenting’ with working-class ways of living. ‘Equal parenting,’ as embodied within the legislation, imposes ideals that sit at odds with working-class people’s attitudes, whilst assuming a two-parent family which is often incongruous with working-class family forms. Ultimately, we favour a more holistic approach towards breaking down ‘heteronormative’ notions of women’s and men’s roles, to enable people to make more meaningful choices about their lives that are not constrained by gender.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42154871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291231199370
J. D. Mujuzi
Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Namibian provides for the right to equality before the law. Article 10(2) prohibits discrimination on several grounds. The Constitution of Namibia, unlike that of South Africa (1996), does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, unlike the Constitutions of some African countries such as Uganda, Seychelles, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the Constitution of Namibia does not prohibit same-sex marriages. Namibian law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. However, in Immigration Selection Board v Frank (2001), the Namibian Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages were not allowed in Namibia. In Digashu and Another v GRN and Others; Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others, dated 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court, by majority, invoked Article 10(1) and common law to overrule its decision in Immigration Selection Board v Frank and to hold that Namibian law should recognise same-sex marriages entered into abroad. However, the court declined to express its opinion on whether discrimination on the ground of sexual-orientation is prohibited in Namibia. In this note, the author argues, inter alia, that the list of grounds under Article 10(2) is closed and that explains why the court did not rule that the appellants had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; it was unlikely for the government to succeed had it relied on the argument of public policy as the basis for its refusal to recognise foreign same-sex marriages; and that the court unconsciously developed common law on the issue of foreign marriages.
《纳米比亚宪法》第10(1)条规定法律面前人人平等的权利。第10(2)条禁止基于若干理由的歧视。纳米比亚宪法与南非宪法(1996年)不同，不禁止基于性取向的歧视。然而，与乌干达、塞舌尔、肯尼亚和津巴布韦等一些非洲国家的宪法不同，纳米比亚的宪法并不禁止同性婚姻。纳米比亚法律并没有明文禁止同性婚姻。然而，在移民选拔委员会诉弗兰克案(2001年)中，纳米比亚最高法院裁定，纳米比亚不允许同性婚姻。《迪加舒和另一个人》vs《GRN和其他人》在2023年5月16日的Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others案中，最高法院以多数票援引第10条第1款和普通法，推翻了其在移民选拔委员会诉Frank案中的决定，并认为纳米比亚法律应承认在国外缔结的同性婚姻。然而，法院拒绝就纳米比亚是否禁止基于性取向的歧视发表意见。在这份说明中，发件人除其他外认为，第10条第(2)款规定的理由清单已经结束，这解释了为什么法院没有裁定上诉人因其性取向而受到歧视;如果政府依靠公共政策作为拒绝承认外国同性婚姻的依据，那么它就不太可能成功;法院在不知不觉中发展了关于外国婚姻问题的普通法。
{"title":"Equality before the law and the recognition of same-sex foreign marriages in Namibia: Digashu and another v GRN and others; Seiler-Lilles and another v GRN and others [2023] NASC 14","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.1177/13582291231199370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231199370","url":null,"abstract":"Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Namibian provides for the right to equality before the law. Article 10(2) prohibits discrimination on several grounds. The Constitution of Namibia, unlike that of South Africa (1996), does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. However, unlike the Constitutions of some African countries such as Uganda, Seychelles, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the Constitution of Namibia does not prohibit same-sex marriages. Namibian law does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. However, in Immigration Selection Board v Frank (2001), the Namibian Supreme Court held that same-sex marriages were not allowed in Namibia. In Digashu and Another v GRN and Others; Seiler-Lilles and Another v GRN and Others, dated 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court, by majority, invoked Article 10(1) and common law to overrule its decision in Immigration Selection Board v Frank and to hold that Namibian law should recognise same-sex marriages entered into abroad. However, the court declined to express its opinion on whether discrimination on the ground of sexual-orientation is prohibited in Namibia. In this note, the author argues, inter alia, that the list of grounds under Article 10(2) is closed and that explains why the court did not rule that the appellants had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation; it was unlikely for the government to succeed had it relied on the argument of public policy as the basis for its refusal to recognise foreign same-sex marriages; and that the court unconsciously developed common law on the issue of foreign marriages.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42850857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/13582291231194226
L. Carlson, James Hand, Panos Kapotas
{"title":"IJDL Editorial - September 2023","authors":"L. Carlson, James Hand, Panos Kapotas","doi":"10.1177/13582291231194226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231194226","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42662757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291231187060
M. Yoshitoshi, Goro Horiguchi, Kiriko Takahashi
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) guarantees the right of all children to receive inclusive education and requires reasonable accommodations be provided accordingly. Japan, which ratified the CRPD in 2014, now positions the social model of disability at the core of its domestic laws and, in schools, we see more provisions of reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities. In this article, we analyze the very first judgments delivered on reasonable accommodations for children with medical care needs since Japan’s ratification of the CRPD. The case was closed by simply recognizing the “financial limitations” of the municipal government and school while excessively emphasizing the parents’ “duty to ensure children to receive general education.” Such a judgment did not sufficiently reflect the intent of the CRPD and relevant domestic laws guaranteeing inclusive education as a “human right” for children. We expect an inversion of this case in the future.
{"title":"Need for a paradigm shift in supporting children with medical care needs in Japan: Legal conflicts between scope and limits of reasonable accommodation in schools","authors":"M. Yoshitoshi, Goro Horiguchi, Kiriko Takahashi","doi":"10.1177/13582291231187060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231187060","url":null,"abstract":"The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) guarantees the right of all children to receive inclusive education and requires reasonable accommodations be provided accordingly. Japan, which ratified the CRPD in 2014, now positions the social model of disability at the core of its domestic laws and, in schools, we see more provisions of reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities. In this article, we analyze the very first judgments delivered on reasonable accommodations for children with medical care needs since Japan’s ratification of the CRPD. The case was closed by simply recognizing the “financial limitations” of the municipal government and school while excessively emphasizing the parents’ “duty to ensure children to receive general education.” Such a judgment did not sufficiently reflect the intent of the CRPD and relevant domestic laws guaranteeing inclusive education as a “human right” for children. We expect an inversion of this case in the future.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46442993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-15DOI: 10.1177/13582291231176513
Catriona Cannon
The interplay of religion and gender is a relevant factor in the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of addressing disadvantage through an intersectional lens, the domestic equality law framework in Britain continues to adopt fixed and discrete classifications of status inequality, undermining protection for Muslim women in the workplace. This paper uses doctrinal and socio-legal method to expose the disregard in the application of British equality law in its international human rights context to the interaction of religion with gender and to present opportunities for development through case law of an intersectional analysis of disadvantage. After highlighting the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women and making the case for an intersectional response, the paper will assess the application of the British equality law framework in relevant cases and will highlight its contribution to the emergence of a ‘conflict’ narrative. This paper will argue that there is, however, scope in human rights, proportionality and harm analyses to highlight experiences of discrimination at the vector of religion and gender. It will conclude that litigants who avail of these opportunities can contribute to development of law and policy which better reflects lived experience.
{"title":"Muslim women in the workplace and the Equality Act 2010: Opportunities for an intersectional analysis","authors":"Catriona Cannon","doi":"10.1177/13582291231176513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231176513","url":null,"abstract":"The interplay of religion and gender is a relevant factor in the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of addressing disadvantage through an intersectional lens, the domestic equality law framework in Britain continues to adopt fixed and discrete classifications of status inequality, undermining protection for Muslim women in the workplace. This paper uses doctrinal and socio-legal method to expose the disregard in the application of British equality law in its international human rights context to the interaction of religion with gender and to present opportunities for development through case law of an intersectional analysis of disadvantage. After highlighting the labour market disadvantage experienced by Muslim women and making the case for an intersectional response, the paper will assess the application of the British equality law framework in relevant cases and will highlight its contribution to the emergence of a ‘conflict’ narrative. This paper will argue that there is, however, scope in human rights, proportionality and harm analyses to highlight experiences of discrimination at the vector of religion and gender. It will conclude that litigants who avail of these opportunities can contribute to development of law and policy which better reflects lived experience.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48364893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291231176518
Enrique Devesa Carpio, Mar Devesa Carpio, Inmaculada Domínguez Fabián, Borja Encinas Goenechea, Robert Meneu Gaya
In Spain, part-time work is considered female, given that 73% of this type of work contract is carried out by women. The conditions for accessing and calculating the retirement pension for part-time workers have been modified in recent years. This has been the result of several judgments of European courts that conclude the existence of indirect gender discrimination. This paper analyses the measures that have been regulated after the aforementioned judgments to assess whether indirect gender discrimination has disappeared from the social protection system in Spain. This paper highlights the effect of the regulatory changes, some of them since 2019, and points out some pending issues, that if they were carried out, would ensure gender discrimination is effectively eliminated.
{"title":"Part-time work and retirement in Spain, towards a system without gender discrimination","authors":"Enrique Devesa Carpio, Mar Devesa Carpio, Inmaculada Domínguez Fabián, Borja Encinas Goenechea, Robert Meneu Gaya","doi":"10.1177/13582291231176518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231176518","url":null,"abstract":"In Spain, part-time work is considered female, given that 73% of this type of work contract is carried out by women. The conditions for accessing and calculating the retirement pension for part-time workers have been modified in recent years. This has been the result of several judgments of European courts that conclude the existence of indirect gender discrimination. This paper analyses the measures that have been regulated after the aforementioned judgments to assess whether indirect gender discrimination has disappeared from the social protection system in Spain. This paper highlights the effect of the regulatory changes, some of them since 2019, and points out some pending issues, that if they were carried out, would ensure gender discrimination is effectively eliminated.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47097978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：