It was other means of achieving the employer's
legitimate aim which were relevant not the means of achieving different aims.
Not exact matches
This is the method of the «double rejection,» of challenging both sides of the usual two - cornered dispute with the
aim at descrying a genuinely new position in
which the
legitimate motives in each of the older ones are given their due.
Once this is done, whatever left should be invested in an asset / mix of assets that best fit your risk profile - of
which long term bonds are a completely
legitimate option, but it's hard to say without knowing more about your long term
aims / liabilities / job market etc..
My
aim is to integrate the
legitimate Fama insights (
which were numerous) and the Shiller corrections into a package of investing ideas that can actually work in the real world.
As video games become recognized as
legitimate educational tools, we'll begin to see more games like Mulaka,
which aims to convey the history of a culture through the lens of interactive entertainment.
Against a backdrop as complex and shifting as this, UK companies may need to establish a clothing policy
which is consistent, practical and easy to defend on the basis of it being a proportionate and
legitimate means of achieving a
legitimate business
aim or a genuine occupational requirement.
Accordingly, not only do employers have to identify a
legitimate aim, but it also has to show that the discriminatory conduct,
which in this case is age 65, is a proportionate means of achieving that
aim.
The test to determine discriminatory conduct, in this case direct age discrimination, is set out in reg 3 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031)(
which is now repealed and set out in s 13 (1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010): «For the purposes of these Regulations, a person («A») discriminates against another person («B») if, on the grounds of B's age, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons,... and A can not show the treatment or, as the case may be, provision, criterion or practice to be a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim.»
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the test of proportionality,
which requires that there should be a
legitimate aim, that the PCP be necessary to achieve that
aim, and that it should be a proportionate means of doing so.
Such a requirement can only be considered «
legitimate» where «the ethos upon
which the church or organisation is founded is not used to pursue an
aim that has no connection with that ethos or with the exercise by the church or organisation of its right of autonomy.»
However, if a dress code appears to discriminatory, an employer will not be liable if they can show that the requirements are a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim and there is case law
which demonstrates that having different dress codes for men and women is not automatically discriminatory.
Organisations can implement policies
which at first glance look like indirect discrimination but can be shown to be a «proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim».
Targets of SLAPPs (i.e. defendants) should have a quick and inexpensive way of having a Court assess whether the lawsuit in
which they have been named is abusive or
aimed at silencing
legitimate and legal expression.
«The Court emphasized that respect for the conditions of «living together» was a
legitimate aim for the measure at issue and that, particularly as the State had a lot of room for manoeuvre («a wide margin of appreciation») as regards this general policy question on
which there were significant differences of opinion, the ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 did not breach the Convention.»
However, the EAT held that the transitional provisions implemented by the Government in pursuit of this
legitimate aim were not proportionate, as the Claimants had suffered undue hardship as a result of the transitional provisions,
which went beyond what was reasonably necessary.
Regulation 3 defined «discrimination» to include direct religious discrimination (that is, treating an employee less favourably on grounds of his or her religion or belief) and indirect religious discrimination (applying a provision, criterion or practice that places persons of the same religion as the employee at a particular disadvantage and
which the employer can not show was a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim).
There is an established line of Strasbourg jurisprudence
which holds that restrictions on the access to court of embassy staff engage Article 6, but can be justified with reference to «the
legitimate aim of complying with international law to promote comity and good relations between States» (Sabah El Seil v France (2012) 54 EHRR 14, at [52]-RRB-.
However, decisions at a European level have permitted certain differences in treatment
which are «objectively justified», as allowing Member States to use mandatory retirement ages where «appropriate and necessary in order to achieve a
legitimate aim in the context of national employment policy.»
It noted the requirement under Article 9 (2) that any limitation placed upon that right must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in order to serve a
legitimate aim, including the rights and freedoms of others,
which could be invoked by the defendant in this case.
The Advocate considered that here, because the policy of political and religious neutrality was crucial to G4S due to the wide range of customers with
which it dealt, it pursued a
legitimate aim.
On the footing on
which the indirect discrimination claim is now advanced, namely disadvantage to a single individual arising out of her wish to manifest her faith in a particular way, everything in the tribunal's findings of fact shows the rule, both during the years when it operated without objection and while it was being reconsidered on Ms Eweida's instigation, to have been a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim.
They considered that the
aim of the uniform code was undoubtedly
legitimate — a finding
which requires no explanation.
The possession proceedings had not afforded the applicant sufficient procedural safeguards with
which to ensure that the possession order was a proportionate response to a
legitimate aim and, thus, necessary in a democratic society.
Thus, the use of the scoring matrix
which did not give special recognition to 24/7 working or providing special priority payments to those who were excused from 24/7 working for childcare reasons was not a means of achieving the chief constable's
legitimate aim.
However, as long as those measures are
aimed at correcting conditions
which prevent or impair the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under article 27, they may constitute a
legitimate differentiation under the Covenant, provided that they are based on reasonable and objective criteria.