IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v50y2021i1p1-35..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Freedom of Religious Association: Towards a Purposive Interpretation of the Employment Equality Exceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Catriona Cannon

Abstract

The exceptions to the principle of equality in employment for employers in Britain with a religious or belief ethos (or who employ personnel for the purposes of organised religion) are ambiguous in scope and lack any clear foundational principle to guide judicial interpretation. In view of the consequent risk of inconsistency in decision-making, this article addresses the question of how best to understand and interpret the exceptions. While the exceptions should be regarded as limited derogations from the equality principle, it is nonetheless important that recognition is afforded to their underlying rationale which, I argue, derives from the fundamental human rights of religious association. Though the concept of associative rights and related ideas have not featured heavily in appellate judgments on the exceptions to date, I argue that such a purposive approach to interpretation of the exceptions could assist the judiciary to reach fair, balanced and consistent decisions in this highly contested area of the law by inviting consideration of the relationships among an employer’s ethos, its employees and the religious group it serves, and by encouraging engagement with the discriminatory impacts which an exercise of these rights may entail.

Suggested Citation

  • Catriona Cannon, 2021. "Freedom of Religious Association: Towards a Purposive Interpretation of the Employment Equality Exceptions," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-35.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:50:y:2021:i:1:p:1-35.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwz025
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:50:y:2021:i:1:p:1-35.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.