Abstract
Editorial 15(3)
In this issue, Michael Connolly considers the question of whether employee-referral schemes may discriminate as they tend to perpetuate existing gender and racial profiles because employees are more likely to recommend a person from the same ethnic or gender group. He considers the way litigation might be brought and dealt with by the courts in the United Kingdom. Connolly also considers how the issue has been addressed in the US jurisprudence and concludes that referral schemes do run the risk of discrimination if unregulated. He reports on the results of a survey of employers, of varying size, using such schemes. Existing safeguards found in the schemes reviewed are unlikely to prevent discrimination, he argues, but he advocates monitoring such schemes to identify any patterns that may be symptomatic of discriminatory practice.
Chris Monaghan reviews the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hounga v. Allen (2014) UKSC 47, which dealt with the question of whether a person who is an illegal immigrant could bring a race discrimination case for dismissal against the person who arranged her entry into the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal thought not and that allowing the case to proceed would condone her illegal conduct and those who assist illegal migrants to enter the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court disagreed and argued that the public interest in protecting vulnerable migrants outweighed the public interest in applying the defence of illegality. It also noted that there was no link between the illegality and her claim for race discrimination. Monaghan welcomes this decision, as it will encourage victims to bring discrimination claims.
Mirko Garasic and Shay Keinan discuss the controversial question of whether boycotting Israeli academia is discriminatory and anti-Semitic, with reference to the recent controversial Australian case where an academic rejected an application from an Israeli scholar for a visiting post in order to make a statement regarding the policies of the Israeli government. A discrimination case was initially brought by an international Jewish organization but not pursued, and the authors consider the issues raised by this case and what should have happened if it had reached court. They argue that rejecting the applicant in this case does constitute discrimination at least on the grounds of nationality and may also be seen as anti-Semitic if an Arab Israeli would have been permitted to apply. They also consider the argument that the boycott is only against Israeli institutions, but as they point out, it is difficult for an academic to operate outside an institutional framework.