Suchergebnisse

Be careful going shopping : racial profiling in everyday life -- When rules exclude : On bowling and equality -- Excluded, harassed, and undervalued : the struggle to break systemic barriers -- Taking positive steps : equity initiatives -- Equitable freedom and dancing shoes -- Caring about equality in indigenous communities.

Over the past five years, the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to grapple with the meaning of constitutional equality and discrimination. In this regard, there is a clear consensus that the Court should follow a two-step test to assess violations of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. First, the Court must identify a grounds-based distinction and, second, determine whether the distinction violates substantive equality. While both parts of the test present interconnected conceptual and contextual challenges, this article focuses on how the Court has applied the first step of the section 15 equality analysis. Recent case law reveals a deeply divided Court. First, fundamental differences are apparent with respect to whether grounds-based distinctions may be understood as inextricably embedded in legislative schemes. Second, the justices diverge on the exigencies of proving adverse impact discrimination. Legal technicalities, comparator group formalities, and fear of imposing any positive rights obligations on governments obscure critical dimensions of the disproportionate effects of law. Third, the association of adverse impact with unintentional discrimination risks overlooking the importance of the actual knowledge of disparities in the effects of laws and policies. Finally, the complex realities of intersectionality, while recognized by some justices, continue to remain on the periphery of equality rights doctrine. While the second step of the equality analysis engages more directly with an assessment of the contextual realities of substantive inequality, it is critical to ensure that courts reach this stage of the analysis and that it is not cut short, thwarted, or obstructed by narrow and formalistic approaches to identifying grounds-based distinctions.

Resumen.Se analiza aquí la evolución del concepto de discriminación en el derecho laboral internacional en relación con el fenómeno socioeconómico de la desigualdad en el trabajo. La no discriminación, principio jurídico inicialmente restringido que exigía la igualdad de trato para toda persona en situación similar, ha ido ampliándose para incluir primero la discriminación indirecta resultante de normas y prácticas aparentemente neutras, y después la desigualdad laboral impuesta a ciertos grupos por factores estructurales (mercado de trabajo, familia y colectividad). Por último, la legislación antidiscriminatoria converge ahora con iniciativas jurídicas contra la desigualdad socioeconómica y la pobreza de determinados sectores de población.

Résumé.L'auteur examine l'évolution de la relation entre le concept de discrimination dans le droit international du travail et la réalité des inégalités socio‐économiques au travail. Conçue au départ comme un principe juridique limité imposant de traiter àégalité des personnes dans des situations similaires, la non‐discrimination a étendu sa portée aux discriminations indirectes découlant de règles, normes ou pratiques neutres en apparence. L'extension s'est poursuivie pour traiter d'inégalités au travail touchant certaines catégories, du fait de contraintes structurelles marchandes, familiales ou communautaires, pour aboutir à une convergence entre législation et discrimination et recourir à la loi pour réduire les inégalités de classe et la pauvreté.

Abstract.This article explores the evolving relationship between the concept of discrimination in international labour law and the socio‐economic phenomenon of inequality at work. While non‐discrimination was initially understood as a fairly limited legal principle mandating equal treatment for similarly situated individuals, it subsequently expanded to address indirect discrimination resulting from apparently neutral rules, standards and practices at work. It has expanded further to take on group‐based patterns of inequality at work related to the structural constraints of the market, the family and community life, ultimately resulting in convergence between anti‐discrimination law and legal initiatives to reduce class‐based socioeconomic inequality and poverty.