Employment Law: Discrimination on the Grounds of Religion

A critical analysis on employment equality law concerning discrimination on the grounds of religion pertaining to Ireland. Explore various scenarios and cases of religious discrimination faced by workers or employees.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
Employment Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EMPLOYMENT LAW
A critical Analysis on employment equality law concerning discrimination on the
grounds of religion pertaining to Ireland
A person treated differently and in a less favourable manner, on the ground of his
religion or belief or his decision to not be bound by a particular religion or belief can be
marked as being discriminated on the grounds of religion1. The difference in treatment could
be a result of a policy or rule; however, it does not need to be intentional to be held as
unlawful. To guard such inequality, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
(IHREC) strictly stands up against any form of discrimination and strives to promote equality
pertaining to the matters covered by the Employment Equality Acts (from 1998 to 2011).
These Acts strive to protect employees and workers against any forms of discrimination at
their workplace. The following nine grounds are safeguarded by the Employment Equality
Acts in context to the workplace discrimination one may face: a) Age, b) Civil status
(previously marital status), c) Family Status, d) Gender, e) Disability, f) Race, g) Religion, h)
members of Traveller Community, and i) Sexual Orientation. Discrimination can be direct as
well as indirect2. Direct discrimination occurs when a worker or an employee is treated
differently or less favoured under the above-mentioned nine grounds. It shows quite blatantly
from the circumstances that such person is being treated unequally3. Indirect discrimination
occurs when an employee or group of employees or a job applicant is treated differently due
to certain employment policy or requirements, which he may find difficult or impossible to
satisfy4. After the phrase ‘religion or belied’ was included along with ‘race or ethnicity,
gender, age, disability and sexual orientation’ under Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing
the European Community in 1997 (EC Treaty), the EU countries have started considering
1 Hayward, R. David, and Neal Krause. "Religion and strategies for coping with racial discrimination among
African Americans and Caribbean Blacks." International Journal of Stress Management 22.1 (2015): 70.
2 Spencer, Sarah, and Colin Harvey. "Context, institution or accountability? Exploring the factors that shape the
performance of national human rights and equality bodies." Policy & Politics 42.1 (2014): 89-107.
3 Moeckli, Daniel. "Equality and non-discrimination." Equality and Non-Discrimination under International
Law. Routledge, 2017. 53-70.
4 Zliobaite, Indre. "A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning." arXiv preprint
arXiv:1511.00148 (2015).

2EMPLOYMENT LAW
religion as one of the factors relating to which one can be discriminated and treated less
favourably in context to implement the anti-discrimination provisions. However, there are
regulations such as the Employment Directive, which lays down exceptions which allows
discrimination on the grounds of age, religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation.
Therefore, in this paper, the discrimination on the grounds of religion breaching the
provisions of Employment Equality Acts is being focused on, to discuss the various scenarios
along with cases of religious discrimination faced by workers or employees. The paper strives
to critically analyse the employment equality law concerning discrimination on the grounds
of religion pertaining to Ireland.
In context of this paper, focusing on the discrimination in terms of religion,
the Employment Equality Acts aims to protect anyone who is being discriminated on the
grounds of religion in his workplace, either by the employer or by his fellow colleagues.
According to Ruthergien, the Acts protect anyone who is a full-time or part-time or a
temporary employee working under a public or private sector or in a training body, trade
union or any other employment agency5. In addition, it also includes people who are self-
employed, local or state authority office holders, partners in partnership, et cetera. The
legislations ban victimization, which a person might face when he faces discrimination
pertaining to his religion or belief. The law strictly directs the employers and others in an
employment not to treat a person differently regarding his religious belief or if a person holds
no religious belief at all. In addition to the Employment Equality Acts, Article 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to freedom of religion, along with a
freedom of thought and conscience. This gives a person the liberty to change his religion or
belief in worship, preaching and practice. However, there are restrictions imposed on the
5 Ruthergien, George. Employment Discrimination Law, Visions of Equality in Theory and Doctrine. West
Academic, 2016.

3EMPLOYMENT LAW
implementation of this clause ‘in accordance with law’ which is important to be maintained
in a democratic society6.
As seen in the case of McKeever v Board of Management Knocktemple National
School and Minister for Education & Science, a teacher in Ireland was discriminated by the
school authority whose competence was questioned on the grounds of religion7. She was
questioned on her competence to furnish a catholic religion certificate. The case highlighted
the authority of Catholic Church in the process of appointing teachers in schools. The teacher
was initially informed that not having a catholic certificate would not be a problem for her as
she would be teaching the fourth grade; however the commitment was withdrawn. It was
reported by the Equality Officer that there was a clear case of discrimination on the grounds
of religion as the decision of the board was heavily influenced by religion and the absence of
the Catholic certificate. The teacher was awarded a compensation of 12,697 Euros as
compensation along with a permanent position as a teacher in a different school. This case
has also resulted in an order being passed compelling the school to follow appropriate and
non-discriminatory procedures while recruiting their staffs. The school was also in this case
ordered to maintain proper records with respect to all the applications and interviews relating
to the recruitment process. The school authorities have also made an apology towards the
teacher for not following proper recruiting procedure. In deciding the case, the court had
made the contention that the school has made a discussion on the religion of the teacher and
their decision of recruitment of the teacher has been withdrawn based on the religion of the
complainant. In this context it can be contended that the decision of the court has been
delivered against section 37, which provides for the exception to the general rule. This
section requires the imposition of religious beliefs to be justified in case of religious
institutions. According to Herbert, this can be argued that the contention that the religious
6Cox., N., Corbett, V. & Ryan, D., Employment Law in Ireland (Dublin: Clarus Press, 2009)
7McKeever v Board of Management Knocktemple National School and Minister for Education & Science (DEC-
E2010-189)

4EMPLOYMENT LAW
institutions are formed and maintained for the sole purpose of inculcating the religious values
and norms within the members and the students8. Any deviation in these norms will render
the institutions to have lost their purpose. Hence, in this case, the refusal of renewing the
employment contract can be treated to be just and proper.
In the case of Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a
similar instance of religious discrimination was reported in England where a nurse was
instructed not to wear a crucifix along with her uniform by the hospital authority9. It was
informed by the authority that the nurse was not discriminated, directly or indirectly on the
grounds of religion, following the provisions of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief)
Regulations 200310. However, according to Lawson, Anna, it can be argued that disallowing a
person to exhibit his or her religious beliefs puts the person under a disadvantage, which
amounts to discrimination. The displaying of visible signs of religious beliefs, political or
philosophical views in an employees’ outfit while being in the workplace may disrupt the
neutrality of the workplace and may cause a sense of distinction within the employees11. This
may lead to formation of community feeling. This also creates a sense of difference within
the employees and they might not feel united as colleagues. Moreover, religious differences
may further instigate the matter. However, this case cannot be treated in that manner as the
wearing of a cross cannot be treated as sign to instigate discrimination according to the
judgement observed in the case of Eweida v British Airwayswas followed in this case12. The
European Court of Human Rights held that the British Airways had adopted a discriminatory
approach towards its employees pertaining to its uniform policy. The court awarded
8 Herbert, David. Religion and civil society: Rethinking public religion in the contemporary world. Routledge,
2017.
9Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ET/1702886/09
10The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
11 Lawson, Anna. "Disadvantage at the intersection of race and disability: Key challenges for EU Non-
Discrimination Law." European Union Non-Discrimination Law and Intersectionality. Routledge, 2016. 57-72.
12 Eweida v British Airways[2013] ECHR 37

5EMPLOYMENT LAW
compensation to the employee who accused the Airline of being discriminate towards her
wearing a crossing over her uniform.
According to the Irish Times, Turbans and Crosses are religious symbols and they
should not be looked down upon or discriminated in the workplace, even though the
employer may observe a different religion or belief. The devotees or the believer have the
right to exhibit their religious choices and its symbols, which the employers have no right to
question. In the case of Garda Commissioner v Singh Oberoi13, the prohibition on wearing
turban while on training for the Garda Reserve has been challenged by a Sikh community
member in Ireland. This proceeding has been dismissed by the High Court. This case has
been initiated when Ravinder Singh Oberoi completed the initial three stages of the training
with respect to Garda Reserve and has been ordered by the authorities to wear full Garda
uniform. This required him to give away his turban. In this context, Mr. Oberoi had to give
away the training. He brought a complaint against the authority for discriminatory treatment
in availing employment on the basis of religion. In this respect the Equality Acts has been
referred, which strictly stands up against any form of discrimination and strives to promote
equality pertaining to the matters covered by the Employment Equality Acts (from 1998 to
2011). These Acts strive to protect employees and workers against discrimination at their
workplace. The following nine grounds are safeguarded by the Employment Equality Acts in
context to the workplace discrimination one may face: a) Age, b) Civil status (previously
marital status), c) Family Status, d) Gender, e) Disability, f) Race, g) Religion, h) members of
Traveller Community, and i) Sexual Orientation. Discrimination can be direct as well as
indirect14. Direct discrimination occurs when a worker or an employee is treated differently or
less favoured under the above-mentioned nine grounds and it shows quite blatantly from the
circumstances that such person is being treated unequally. Indirect discrimination occurs
13Garda Commissioner v Singh Oberoi [2013] IEHC 267
14 Villegas-Gold, Roberto, and Hyung Chol Yoo. "Coping with discrimination among Mexican American
college students." Journal of Counseling Psychology 61.3 (2014): 404.

6EMPLOYMENT LAW
when an employee or group of employees or a job applicant is treated differently due to
certain employment policy or requirements, which he may find difficult or impossible to
satisfy. However, according to the arguments presented by the Lawyers presenting Garda
Commissioner has mentioned that the members in the Garda Reserve cannot be construed as
employees under the meaning provided under the these Acts. Hence, it has been contended
that these equality Acts are not applicable to the Garda members. Moreover, the Garda
Síochána Act defines a member of the reserve to be a volunteer and it not bound by or to be
directed by any contract of employment. This contention was affirmed by the High Court.
However, there were several negative aspects of the decision that has been criticised by
several legal experts. In this case, the English case of X. v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice
Bureau15has been referred to in which it has been contended that being a member of the
Garda Reserve cannot be treated as an activity of occupational nature. It can be considered to
be more of a volunteer activity.
In the case of Islington London Borough Council v Ladele16, discrimination occurs by
a religious person against a same sex couple in a public office. In this case Lillian ladele
worked for the London Borough of Islington as a registrar for birth, marriages and death. It is
a UK labour law case. In Islington all existing registrar appoint as a marriage registrar as well
as civil partnership registrar under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. According to Wintemute,
in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 it grants rights and responsibilities to civil partners similar
to civil marriage couples17. In this act rights relating to property, social security, rights
regarding parental responsibility and pension benefit same as opposite married couple are
given. On the ground of Christian belief Ladele objected to supervise a civil partnership. She
stated that it was against its religious belief. On the basis of her objection Islington drill and
15X. v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau [2012] UKSC 59
16Islington London Borough Council v LadeleEWCA Civ 1357
17 Wintemute, Robert. "From ‘sex rights’ to ‘love rights’: partnership rights as human rights." Sexuality and
Equality Law. Routledge, 2017. 85-134.

7EMPLOYMENT LAW
intimidate to dismiss her from the job. For this reaction Ladele said that on the basis of her
religious belief she should not be performed this civil partnership and she was treated
unlawfully by Islington. That’s why she made an application stating her complain of indirect
and direct discrimination on the basis of religion and harassment to Employment Tribunal. It
was held that she had been harassed and discriminated directly and indirectly. It was opposed
by Islington and Liberty as intervener that there is no choice under Equity Act (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations 2007 but to do her full duties. In the court of appeal Lord Dyson
MR held that there is no harassment or discrimination occurs so there is no reason to remit
the case. According to Countouris, the Employment Tribunal is incorrect because there is no
discrimination if all the employees be treated in ac same way, she is the one who dislike same
sex couples without the excuse of religious belief18. In the judgment it was mentioned that
Ladele refuse to perform a civil partnership on the basis of religion belief could not be
justified19. Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 it was mentioned that civil partners should
be treated as a same sex couples and all registrars should perform as a part of their job with
dignity for all the policies. It was decided that there is indirect discrimination occurred
because all registrars should perform their duties as a civil partnership registrar under the
Dignity policy. The requirement for performing her job did not stop her from worshiping. It
was mentioned under article 9 of ECHR qualified rights. In the case of Lord Hoffmann put it
in R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School, it was held that according to article 9 of
ECHR that one person should not be allowed to exhibit one’s religion at any cost regarding
place and time of their own.
In the case of McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd20 it was an application for granting
permission from Court of Appeal of England and Wales against the decision of Employment
18 Countouris, Nicola. The changing law of the employment relationship: comparative analyses in the European
context. Routledge, 2016.
19 Wintemute, Robert. "Accommodating religious beliefs: harm, clothing or symbols, and refusals to serve
others." The Modern Law Review 77.2 (2014): 223-253.
20McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880

8EMPLOYMENT LAW
Appeal Tribunal. Here a relationship counsellor refuses to counsel a same sex couple
regarding sexual matters, because of his Christian belief. Under the Employment Equality
(Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 Christian belief did not suffer discrimination. 48 years
old Christian from Bristol named Gary McFarlane employed at the Avon branch of charity as
a relationship counsellor, where a charity provides counselling for families, couples and
individuals regarding relationship support. On August 2003 he joined the organization and
there was a condition on the acceptance of organizations equal opportunities policy. In that
policy it was mentioned that every person regarding the characteristics and sexual orientation
should be treated equally21. In September 2006 he applied for the diploma course in psycho-
sexual therapy (PST). He was facing problem regarding assistance for the same sex couples
who has sexual issues. It’s his duty to give assistance to those people who need help
regarding sexual issues. On 12 December 2007 he was asked to confirm about the
counselling and PST regarding issues from same sex couples. In January 2008 he replied that
he is unable help the couple’s whit the same sex issue. On 18th March 2008 he was discharged
from his post on the ground of difficulty to carry out the work. He appealed to the
employment tribunal there is discrimination occurred on the ground of religion and belief. In
this appeal claim for the wrongful dismissal was accepted by the tribunal but the other claims
was dismissed. A witnessed statement submitted by Archbishop of Canterbury. In this case
Lord Justice said that confirmation for the legal protection and support moral position on the
ground of religion belief. In this appeal it was held that protection for the held position on the
ground for religion cannot be justified. In this society everyone share different religion and
beliefs22. Here one particular belief cannot dominate other religion. In this appeal McFarlane
was unable to work in the circumstances where he has to help the people of same sex. Every
21 McCrudden, Christopher. "Marriage Registrars, Same-Sex Relationships, and Religious Discrimination in the
European Court of Human Rights." (2016).
22 Berger, Peter L. "The desecularization of the world: A global overview." The New Sociology of Knowledge.
Routledge, 2017. 61-76.

9EMPLOYMENT LAW
individual is conscience free to accept such law. In the statement it was mentioned that
McFarlane request supported by the witnessed. There are no specific rules and regulations
regarding the Christian belief where a person discriminates against any religious believe. The
appeal was rejected here because it was stated that a person does not have any discussed
under the law. There is no discrimination occur in the ground of religion believe or anything.
The charity has the universal policy to help each and every one who seeks for counselling
from the people. In this case, the appeal regarding discrimination against McFarlane was not
right and it was rejected by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
Another case in this context, which needs mention, is the case of Flynn v Power23. In this
case, a schoolteacher has been terminated from her employment for cohabiting with her ex-
husband with whom he has been separated and who was then a married man. Being raised
catholic he has been alleged to have been indulged in illicit relationship with his separated
husband. However, the court held the teacher to be at fault and held that her dismissal cannot
be treated to be one of unfair dismissals as the same has not been affected following her
pregnancy. In this context, the court has held that a teacher is a person from whom students
learn and they need to maintain their modesty at all times. Indulging into an illicit
relationship with a separated husband in an open manner was cannot be contended to be
justified by the court. The court had ordered the dismissal to be fair24.
The displaying of visible signs of religious beliefs, political or philosophical views in an
employees’ outfit while being in the workplace may disrupt the neutrality of the workplace
and may cause a sense of distinction within the employees. According to Tonnies and
Loomis, this may lead to formation of community feeling25. This also creates a sense of
difference within the employees and they might not feel united as colleagues. Moreover,
religious differences may further instigate the matter. This has been contended in the case of
23Flynn v Power [1985] IR 648
24Regan, M. (ed.), Employment Law (Sussex: Tottel, 2009)
25 Tonnies, Ferdinand, and Charles P. Loomis. Community and society. Routledge, 2017.

10EMPLOYMENT LAW
Achbita & Anorv G4S Secure Solutions26. The discrimination in terms of religion, the
Employment Equality Acts aims to protect anyone who is being discriminated on the grounds
of religion in his workplace, either by the employer or by his fellow colleagues. The Acts
protect anyone who is a full-time or part-time or a temporary employee working under a
public or private sector or in a training body, trade union or any other employment agency. In
addition, it also includes people who are self-employed, local or state authority office holders,
partners in partnership, et cetera27. The legislations ban victimization, which a person might
face when he faces discrimination pertaining to his religion or belief. The law strictly directs
the employers and others in an employment not to treat a person differently regarding his
religious belief or if a person holds no religious belief at all. According to Syed, Jawad, and
Harry, in addition to the Employment Equality Acts, Article 9 of the European Convention on
Human Rights provides a right to freedom of religion, along with a freedom of thought and
conscience28. This gives a person the liberty to change his religion or belief in worship,
preaching and practice. But wearing outfits to display religious beliefs may instigate
victimization. And the colleagues, if not the employer may subject the person wearing such
religious attire to discrimination and victimization29. But in this present case, the court has
ordered in favour of the employee as the employer has allowed other employees working for
them to wear their religious symbols.
In the case of Merriman v St. James Hospital30, a termination of the employment of an
employee has been effected for her refusal to carry objects of religious significance to the bed
of a patient who was dying patient for performing a ceremony of religious nature. In this
proceeding the court has ordered in favour of the employee as she has refrained from
26Achbita&Anor v G4S Secure Solutions NV [2017] EUECJ C-157/15
27 Fox, Jonathan. The unfree exercise of religion: A world survey of discrimination against religious minorities .
Cambridge University Press, 2016.
28 Syed, Jawad, and Harry J. Van Buren. "Global business norms and Islamic views of women’s
employment." Business Ethics Quarterly 24.2 (2014): 251-276.
29 Leigh, Ian, and Andrew Hambler. "Religious symbols, conscience, and the rights of others." Oxford Journal
of Law and Religion 3.1 (2014): 2-24.
30Merriman v St. James Hospital 1986 UD 365

11EMPLOYMENT LAW
participating in any religious rites and the carrying of a religious object can also be treated as
discrimination. In this case, such discrimination can be construed as a forceful imposition of
religious duties on an employee31. The court has rendered the same as discriminatory and has
ordered for a reinstatement of the employee.As argued by the Irish Times, Turbans and
Crosses are religious symbols and they should not be looked down upon or discriminated in
the workplace, even though the employer may observe a different religion or belief. The
devotees or the believer have the right to exhibit their religious choices and its symbols,
which the employers have no right to question32.
In the Canadian case of Caldwell v Stuart33, a catholic school has refused to renew the
employment contract of a catholic teacher after her marrying a married man, who has been
divorced from her previous husband. The court in this case has held this decision of the
school authority to be reasonable. However, in the context of the present day system of the
employment laws and other opinions of the academicians, this contention of the court can be
treated to be oppressive. However, under section 37 it can be contended that the religious
institutions are free to observe their religious views and the court cannot interfere in the same.
This can be argued with the contention that the religious institutions are formed and
maintained for the sole purpose of inculcating the religious values and norms within the
members and the students. According to Hepple, any deviation in these norms will render the
institutions to have lost their purpose. Hence, in this case, the refusal of renewing the
employment contract can be treated to be just and proper34.
Hence, it can be concluded that a person treated differently and in a less favourable
manner, on the ground of his religion or belief or his decision to not be bound by a particular
31 Flake, Dallan F. "Bearing Burdens: Religious Accommodations that Adversely Affect Coworker
Morale." Ohio St. LJ 76 (2015): 169.
32Jain, Harish C., Peter Sloane, and Frank Horwitz. Employment Equity and Affirmative Action: An
International Comparison: An International Comparison. Routledge, 2015.
33Caldwell v Stuart [1984] 2 SCR 603
34Hepple, B., ‘Factors influencing the making and transformation of labour law in Europe’ in Davidov, G.
&Langille B. (eds.), The Idea of Labour Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)

12EMPLOYMENT LAW
religion or belief can be marked as being discriminated on the grounds of religion. The
legislation ban victimization, which a person might face when he faces discrimination is
pertaining to his religion or belief. The law strictly directs the employers and others in
employment not to treat a person differently regarding his religious belief or if a person holds
no religious belief at all. It is important that the imposition of religious beliefs needs to be
justified in case of religious institutions35. This can be argued with the contention that the
religious institutions are formed and maintained for the sole purpose of inculcating the
religious values and norms within the members and the students. Any deviation in these
norms will render the institutions to have lost their purpose. Hence, in this case, the refusal of
renewing the employment contract can be treated to be just and proper.The displaying of
visible signs of religious beliefs, political or philosophical views in an employees’ outfit
while being in the workplace may disrupt the neutrality of the workplace and may cause a
sense of distinction within the employees. This may lead to formation of community feeling.
This also creates a sense of difference within the employees and they might not feel united as
colleagues. Moreover, religious differences may further instigate the matter. However, this
case cannot be treated in that manner as the wearing of a cross cannot be treated as sign to
instigate discrimination. Turbans and Crosses are religious symbols and they should not be
looked down upon or discriminated in the workplace, even though the employer may observe
a different religion or belief. The devotees or the believer have the right to exhibit their
religious choices and its symbols, which the employers have no right to question.The
displaying of visible signs of religious beliefs, political or philosophical views in an
employees’ outfit while being in the workplace may disrupt the neutrality of the workplace
and may cause a sense of distinction within the employees. This may lead to formation of
community feeling. This also create a sense of difference within the employees and they
might not feel united as colleagues.To guard such inequality, the Irish Human Rights and
35 Smith, Christian. Disruptive religion: The force of faith in social movement activism. Routledge, 2014.

13EMPLOYMENT LAW
Equality Commission (IHREC) strictly stands up against any form of discrimination and
strives to promote equality pertaining to the matters covered by the Employment Equality
Acts (from 1998 to 2011). These Acts strive to protect employees and workers against
discrimination at their workplace.

14EMPLOYMENT LAW
Bibliography
Achbita&Anor v G4S Secure Solutions NV [2017] EUECJ C-157/15
Berger, Peter L. "The desecularization of the world: A global overview." The New
Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, 2017. 61-76.
Caldwell v Stuart [1984] 2 SCR 603
Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ET/1702886/09
Countouris, Nicola. The changing law of the employment relationship: comparative
analyses in the European context. Routledge, 2016.
Cox., N., Corbett, V.& Ryan, D., Employment Law in Ireland (Dublin: Clarus Press,
2009)
European Convention on Human Rights
Eweida v British Airways[2013] ECHR 37
Flake, Dallan F. "Bearing Burdens: Religious Accommodations that Adversely Affect
Coworker Morale." Ohio St. LJ 76 (2015): 169.
Flynn v Power [1985] IR 648
Fox, Jonathan. The unfree exercise of religion: A world survey of discrimination against
religious minorities. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Garda Commissioner v Singh Oberoi [2013] IEHC 267
Hayward, R. David, and Neal Krause. "Religion and strategies for coping with racial
discrimination among African Americans and Caribbean Blacks." International Journal
of Stress Management 22.1 (2015): 70.
Hepple, B., ‘Factors influencing the making and transformation of labour law in Europe’
in Davidov, G. &Langille B. (eds.), The Idea of Labour Law (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2011)

15EMPLOYMENT LAW
Herbert, David. Religion and civil society: Rethinking public religion in the contemporary
world. Routledge, 2017.
Islington London Borough Council v LadeleEWCA Civ 1357
Jain, Harish C., Peter Sloane, and Frank Horwitz. Employment Equity and Affirmative
Action: An International Comparison: An International Comparison. Routledge, 2015.
Lawson, Anna. "Disadvantage at the intersection of race and disability: Key challenges
for EU Non-Discrimination Law." European Union Non-Discrimination Law and
Intersectionality. Routledge, 2016. 57-72.
Leigh, Ian, and Andrew Hambler. "Religious symbols, conscience, and the rights of
others." Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 3.1 (2014): 2-24.
McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880
McKeever v Board of Management Knocktemple National School and Minister for
Education & Science (DEC-E2010-189)
Merriman v St. James Hospital 1986 UD 365
Moeckli, Daniel. "Equality and non-discrimination." Equality and Non-Discrimination
under International Law. Routledge, 2017. 53-70.
Regan, M. (ed.), Employment Law (Sussex: Tottel, 2009)
Ruthergien, George. Employment Discrimination Law, Visions of Equality in Theory and
Doctrine. West Academic, 2016.
Smith, Christian. Disruptive religion: The force of faith in social movement activism.
Routledge, 2014.
Spencer, Sarah, and Colin Harvey. "Context, institution or accountability? Exploring the
factors that shape the performance of national human rights and equality bodies." Policy
& Politics 42.1 (2014): 89-107.
Syed, Jawad, and Harry J. Van Buren. "Global business norms and Islamic views of
women’s employment." Business Ethics Quarterly 24.2 (2014): 251-276.

16EMPLOYMENT LAW
The Employment Equality Act
Tonnies, Ferdinand, and Charles P. Loomis. Community and society. Routledge, 2017.
Treaty Establishing the European Community 1997
Villegas-Gold, Roberto, and Hyung Chol Yoo. "Coping with discrimination among
Mexican American college students." Journal of Counseling Psychology 61.3 (2014):
404.
Wintemute, Robert. "Accommodating religious beliefs: harm, clothing or symbols, and
refusals to serve others." The Modern Law Review 77.2 (2014): 223-253.
X. v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau [2012] UKSC 59
Zliobaite, Indre. "A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine
learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00148 (2015).
1.