Suchergebnisse

The problem of comparison of situations is often faced by courts. There is no criterion that could direct a proper comparison in discrimination cases. The requirement to compare with other persons in a similar situation allows comparison of real situations and the possibility to compare situations in the past and hypothetical situations. The law omissions authorise courts to use the instrument of comparison flexibly, so consequently the problem of impartiality and incoherence of implementation of non-discrimination law can be raised. As the main element in examining the fact of direct discrimination, the element of comparison is criticised in present scientific papers because it is desirable but not a necessary element. It is considered that the main element in examining the fact of direct discrimination is less favourable treatment—it can be established following the criterion only of exceptional feature. There has to be a direct link between less favourable treatment and the grounds of discrimination consolidated in the law. The practice of stereotypes is widely considered as form of direct discrimination. The perpetrator's aim and purpose to discriminate is not a necessary condition of liability even if the respondent appeal on the customers is money saving or conflict avoiding. Examining the basis of justifying direct discrimination, the justifications, exceptions, and exclusions are distinguished. Exceptions that can justify direct discrimination are finitive and narrow. Lithuanian law prohibits direct discrimination justification apart from narrow exceptions consolidated in the legislation. One of the exceptions that is consolidated in the legislation is the necessary and genuine occupational requirements that must be proportional and lawful.

The problem of comparison of situations is often faced by courts. There is no criterion that could direct a proper comparison in discrimination cases. The requirement to compare with other persons in a similar situation allows comparison of real situations and the possibility to compare situations in the past and hypothetical situations. The law omissions authorise courts to use the instrument of comparison flexibly, so consequently the problem of impartiality and incoherence of implementation of non-discrimination law can be raised. As the main element in examining the fact of direct discrimination, the element of comparison is criticised in present scientific papers because it is desirable but not a necessary element. It is considered that the main element in examining the fact of direct discrimination is less favourable treatment—it can be established following the criterion only of exceptional feature. There has to be a direct link between less favourable treatment and the grounds of discrimination consolidated in the law. The practice of stereotypes is widely considered as form of direct discrimination. The perpetrator's aim and purpose to discriminate is not a necessary condition of liability even if the respondent appeal on the customers is money saving or conflict avoiding. Examining the basis of justifying direct discrimination, the justifications, exceptions, and exclusions are distinguished. Exceptions that can justify direct discrimination are finitive and narrow. Lithuanian law prohibits direct discrimination justification apart from narrow exceptions consolidated in the legislation. One of the exceptions that is consolidated in the legislation is the necessary and genuine occupational requirements that must be proportional and lawful.