Introduction
In the case of Homer (Appellant) V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 15, all facts pertinent to the decisions of the deciding judges are presented within the context of the following heading.
This is a case of appeal heard by Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance & Lord Kerr between the 17th- 19th of January 2012.
In itself this case concerns the indirect discrimination of the appellant Mr. Homer, and is being appealed against the decision of the court of appeal.
Facts
Mr. Homer, was a member of the National Legal Database (hereinafter referred to as PNLD) working as a legal adviser. During his early stint at the PNLD it was not an occupational necessity to possess a Legal degree or its equivalent to obtain the Job as a legal advisor. Mr. Homer’s many years of experience at the police force prior to working at the PNLD made him …show more content…
This case in itself is drawn upon to highlight the framework of what the courts views as appropriate reasons & justification for indirect discrimination.
From the opinion of the assenting judges it is clear that there is a common understanding that the actions of the PNLD are indirectly discriminatory. The similarities drawn between their actions and that which is outlined within the “Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (7)” make this evident. More specifically, this direct correlation can be seen under Regulation 7 Section 2(b) of the the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (7).
Although this is true, as stated within Justices concurring decisions, if the employer can show that there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, this act is justified, as we see in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence (20). “A provision, criterion or practice is justified if the employer can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In the case of Homer (Appellant) V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 15, all facts pertinent to the decisions of the deciding judges are presented within the context of the following heading.
This is a case of appeal heard by Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance & Lord Kerr between the 17th- 19th of January 2012.
In itself this case concerns the indirect discrimination of the appellant Mr. Homer, and is being appealed against the decision of the court of appeal.
Facts
Mr. Homer, was a member of the National Legal Database (hereinafter referred to as PNLD) working as a legal adviser. During his early stint at the PNLD it was not an occupational necessity to possess a Legal degree or its equivalent to obtain the Job as a legal advisor. Mr. Homer’s many years of experience at the police force prior to working at the PNLD made him …show more content…
This case in itself is drawn upon to highlight the framework of what the courts views as appropriate reasons & justification for indirect discrimination.
From the opinion of the assenting judges it is clear that there is a common understanding that the actions of the PNLD are indirectly discriminatory. The similarities drawn between their actions and that which is outlined within the “Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (7)” make this evident. More specifically, this direct correlation can be seen under Regulation 7 Section 2(b) of the the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (7).
Although this is true, as stated within Justices concurring decisions, if the employer can show that there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, this act is justified, as we see in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence (20). “A provision, criterion or practice is justified if the employer can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.