Discrimination
8900
225174291
2008-07-12T08:03:13Z
Rjwilmsi
203434
gen fixes + link/fix date fields in cite templates (explanation [[User:Rjwilmsi#My_correction_of_dates_in_templates|here]]) using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]]
{{Articleissues|globalize=May 2008|POV=December 2007}}
{{Discrimination (sidebar)}}
In general, '''discrimination''', in a non-legal sense, is the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things. We all have the power of discrimination, which is essential for us to be able to make decisions and judgements about things.
This article focuses on discrimination in a legal sense, which is the prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on certain characteristics. Discrimination on grounds such as race or religion, is generally illegal in most Western societies, while discriminating between people on the grounds of merit is usually lawful. The latter is more commonly referred to as "differentiating." When unlawful discrimination takes place, it is often described as discrimination ''against'' a person or group of people.
==Direct vs. subtle==
Unlawful discrimination can be characterized as direct or subtle. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favorably because of their possession of an attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, family status, national origin, military status, disability), compared with someone without that attribute in the same circumstances. An example of direct discrimination would be not offering a job to a woman because she is likely to take maternity leave whereas a man is not. Indirect or subtle discrimination involves setting a condition or requirement which a smaller proportion of those with the attribute are able to comply with, without reasonable justification. The U.S. case of [[Griggs v. Duke Power Company]][http://www.finduslaw.com/griggs_v_duke_power_co_1971_401_us_424_91_s_ct_849] provides an example of indirect discrimination, where an aptitude test used in job applications was found "to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than white applicants".
==Race discrimination==
Racial discrimination differentiates between individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial differences, and has been official government policy in several countries, such as [[South Africa]] in the [[apartheid]] era, and the USA.
In the [[United States]], [[racial profiling]] of minorities by law enforcement officials has been called racial discrimination.<ref>
{{cite news
|first =Gene
|last =Callahan
|coauthors =Anderson, William
||title =The Roots of Racial Profiling
|work =Reason Online
|publisher =Reason Foundation
|date =2001 August-September >?'
|accessdate =2006-07-27
}}</ref> As early as 1865, the [http://www.finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1866_civil_rights_act_of_1871_cra_42_u_s_code_21_1981_1981a_1983_1988 Civil Rights Act] provided a remedy for intentional race discrimination in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The [http://www.finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1866_civil_rights_act_of_1871_cra_42_u_s_code_21_1981_1981a_1983_1988 Civil Rights Act of 1871] applies to public employment or employment involving state action prohibiting deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution or federal laws through action under color of law. Title VII is the principal federal statute with regard to employment discrimination prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, labor organizations, training programs and employment agencies based on race or color, religion, gender, and national origin. Title VII also prohibits retaliation against any person for opposing any practice forbidden by statute, or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding under the statute. The [http://www.finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 Civil Rights Act of 1991] expanded the damages available in Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to a jury trial. Title VII also provides that [http://deskinlawfirm.com/race_color_ancestry_and_ethnicity_discrimination race and color discrimination] against every race and color is prohibited.
In the UK the inquiry following the murder of [[Stephen Lawrence]] accused the police of [[institutional racism]].
* [http://www.legalferret.net Weaver v NATFHE (now part of the UCU)] Race/sex discrimination case. An Industrial (Employment) Tribunal in the UK decided that a trade union was justified in not assisting a Black woman member, complaining of racist/sexist harassment because the accused male would lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision. Also known as the Bournville College Racial Harassment issue.
==Age discrimination==
[[Ageism|Age discrimination]] is discrimination against a person or group on the grounds of age. Although theoretically the word can refer to the discrimination against any age group, age discrimination usually comes in one of three forms: discrimination against [[youth]] (also called [[adultism]]), discrimination against those 40 years old or older [http://www.finduslaw.com/age_discrimination_in_employment_act_of_1967_adea_29_u_s_code_chapter_14], and discrimination against elderly people.
In the United States, the [[Age Discrimination in Employment Act]] prohibits employment discrimination nationwide based on age with respect to employees 40 years of age or older. The [http://www.finduslaw.com/age_discrimination_in_employment_act_of_1967_adea_29_u_s_code_chapter_14 Age Discrimination in Employment Act] also addresses the difficulty older workers face in obtaining new employment after being displaced from their jobs, arbitrary age limits.
In many countries, companies more or less openly refuse to hire people above a certain age despite the increasing lifespans and average age of the population. The reasons for this range from vague feelings that younger people are more "dynamic" and create a positive image for the company, to more concrete concerns about regulations granting older employees higher salaries or other benefits without these expenses being fully justified by an older employees' greater experience.
Some people consider that [[teenagers]] and [[youth]] (around 15-25 years old) are victims of [[adultism]], age discrimination framed as a paternalistic form of protection. In seeking social justice, they feel that it is necessary to remove the use of a false moral agenda in order to achieve agency and empowerment. This perspective is based on the grounds that youth should be treated more respectfully by adults and not as second-class citizens. Some suggest that social [[stratification]] in age groups causes outsiders to incorrectly [[stereotype]] and generalize the group, for instance that all adolescents are equally immature, violent or rebellious, listen to rock tunes and do [[hard and soft drugs|drug]]s. Some have organized groups against age discrimination.
Ageism is the causal effect of a continuum of fears related to age.{{Fact|date=July 2007}} This continuum includes:
*[[Pediaphobia]]: the fear of infants or small children.
*[[Ephebiphobia]]: the fear of youth.
*[[Gerontophobia]]: the fear of elderly people.
Related terms include:
*[[Adultism]]: Also called adultarchy, adult privilege, and adultcentrism/adultocentrism, this is the wielding of authority over young people and the preference of adults before children and youth.
*[[Jeunism]]: Also called "youthism" is the holding of beliefs or actions taken that preference 'younger' people before adults.
==Sex discrimination==
{{seealso|Sexism}}
Though sexism refers to beliefs and [[attitude]]s in relation to the [[gender]] of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. '''Sex discrimination''', on the other hand, may have legal consequences. Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries.
Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. This is considered a form of [[prejudice]] and is illegal in certain enumerated circumstances in most countries.
Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or because an [[employer]] did not hire, promote or wrongfully terminated an employee based on his or her gender, or employers pay unequally based on gender. In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship due to his or her gender. In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on his or her gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}
Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend his or her credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.
Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles.{{Fact|date=May 2008}} While there are non-physical differences between men and women, there is little agreement as to what those differences are.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}
Unfair discrimination usually follows the [[sexism|gender stereotyping]] held by a society.
The [[United Nations]] had concluded that women often experience a "glass ceiling" and that there are no societies in which women enjoy the same opportunities as men. The term "glass ceiling" is used to describe a perceived barrier to advancement in employment based on discrimination, especially sex discrimination. In the [[United States]], the Glass Ceiling Commission, a government-funded group, stated: "Over half of all Master’s degrees are now awarded to women, yet 95% of senior-level managers, of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies are men. Of them, 97% are white." In its report, it recommended [[affirmative action]], which is the consideration of an employee's gender and race in hiring and promotion decisions, as a means to end this form of discrimination.<ref name="Glass Ceiling Commission">{{cite web
|url=http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace
|title=A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital
|date=1995-11
|accessdate=2008-05-23}}</ref>
[[transsexualism|Transgendered]] individuals, both male to female and female to male, often experience problems which often lead to dismissals, underachievement, difficulty in finding a job, social isolation, and, occasionally, violent attacks against them.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on his or her gender.
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz 8WL00305
This very recent case is one of the first cases where a local authority defined as a Public authority is seeking to evict a homosexual man from his home by directly discriminating him.
The Parties (i) London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
In international law, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham is deemed as an internal organ of the state, an organ of the central government of the state and as a territorial unit of the sovereign State, in this case the term “state” is referred to the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
In the law of human Rights, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham is a local authority defined as a public authority under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The said public authority manages numerous properties in the borough through a subsidiary entity referred to as “Hammersmith & Fulham Homes Limited” one of which is occupied by Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz situate at 44 Crefeld Close, Hammersmith, London W6 8EL [“The property”].
The said public authority has unlimited resources, residual income and lots of money it receives from “Council tax payments” [Public Funds] from which public funds the local authority has used to pay for the initiation of this discriminatory possession claim against Mr. Ciechanowicz in order to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home like discarding a dog.
Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz is a white middle aged gay man, a widow and a surviving spouse of a homosexual marriage-like relationship with the deceased partner and the secure tenant of the property].
Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz is a Polish national who does not speak, read, write or communicate in English.
As of 1st May 2004, the Republic of Poland [the accession state] became a full member of the European Union [“EU”] gaining the same rights as the rights of membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain of the EU, which as a state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is also a full member of the EU. This enlargement of state EU membership provides for citizens of new member state countries to freely come to the United Kingdom and settle and by means of reciprocity vice versa for UK citizens to freely come to the new EU member states and settle.
The Facts
The premises situate at 44 Crefeld Close, London W6 8EL [“The Property”] were let to Mr. Philip Sexton (deceased – “the tenant”) under a Secure Tenancy entered into between Mr. Philip Sexton and the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham which begun on 15th November 2004.
In January 2005 (some two months later) Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz moved into the property and commenced occupation of the property in co-habitation with Mr. Sexton, as Mr. Sexton’s lover and co-habiting homosexual partner.
In February 2006 Mr. Philip Sexton [the principle tenant] formally assigned a Deed of Assignment of his Secure Tenancy at Willesden County Court to Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz in the event of Mr. Sexton’s absence, death or sickness, citing, inter alia, s.89 of the Housing Act 1985, the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 decided by the Law Lords in the House of Lords and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
On 20th February 2007, Mr. Sexton died at Charing Cross hospital.
Mr. Ciechanowicz is the surviving partner of the “marriage-like”relationship with the principle homosexual tenant [the deceased Mr. Philip Sexton] and as such Mr. Ciechanowicz is the Successor of the existing secure tenancy.
In March and April of 2007, Nana Ababio, an employee of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham had sex discriminated Mr. Ciechanowicz by treating Mr. Ciechanowicz as an illegal occupier of the property rather than as the surviving spouse of the homosexual relationship with Mr. Sexton [the deceased tenant].
This discrimination of Mr. Ciechanowicz by an employee of the local authority [Nana Ababio] is set out in express terms where Nana Ababio had written a memo dated 19th March 2007. “Deal with illegal occupant”
Nana Ababio, the employee of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham then referred the matter to the Legal Services of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
This form of sex discrimination was the genesis of the Local Authority issuing possession proceedings at West London County Court seeking to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home.
On 22nd January 2008 possession proceedings were initiated in the West London County Court against Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz litigated by Omowunmi Emmanuell, a litigation lawyer in the employment of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and under the supervision of Michael Cogher (Head of Legal Services of the London borough of Hammersmith & Fulham). The Claim for Possession together with the Particulars of Claim for Possession was made in the name of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
The intention and the aim of the proceedings are designed to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home on a false premise that he is some form of illegal occupant.
The Ground for Possession purporting to justify in law the eviction of Mr.Ciechanowicz is set out as: “The tenant died on the 20th February 2007. The Defendant has no right of occupation of the property”
Yet the difference between an illegal occupant and a surviving gay widow spouse of a homosexual relationship is vast.
Mr. Ciechanowicz does not understand, write, read or speak in English and the Possession proceedings against him at West London County Court on 17th March 2008 lasted no more than 5 minutes, with an erroneous possession order made against him by DJ Ryan.
Case Law
The Deed of Assignment of Mr. Sexton assigning his Secure Tenancy to Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz at Willesden County Court in the event of Mr. Sexton’s death referred to, inter alia, to the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 decided by the Law Lords in the House of Lords.
The case of Ghaidan v Mendoza first came before the West London County Court when the Claimant landlord, a private landlord, Mr. Ahmad Ghaidan brought possession proceedings against Mr. Juan Godin-Mendoza in the West London County Court claiming possession of Mr. Mendoza’s flat. Judge Cowell [sitting at West London County Court] held that on the death of Hugh Wallwyn-James (the deceased homosexual partner of Mr. Godin-Mendoza) Mr. Mendoza did become entitled to an assured tenancy of the flat by succession as a member of the original tenant's 'family'.
The case of (Ghaidan v Mendoza) was initiated in the West London County Court after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000 but before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2006 even existed as an Act of Parliament, the finding by West London County Court conceding that Mr. Mendoza did become entitled to an Assured tenancy. This decision was at a time before the House of Lords had subsequently held in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 that Mr. Mendoza was indeed entitled to a secure tenancy.
The House of Lords in the United Kingdom had subsequently re affirmed the right to succession of a secure tenancy in the more recent case of Birmingham City Council v Walker (FC) [2007] UKHL 22 (May 2007)
Therefore in respect of possession proceedings brought against Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, the proceedings are discriminatory and devoid of merit for they are brought (i) after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, (ii) after the ruling by the House of Lords in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557, (iii) after the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force (giving homosexual couples the right to succession of tenancy) (iv) after Part 3 of the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act (Sexual orientation) Regulations 2007 – discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and (v) after the ruling by the House of Lords in Birmingham City Council v Walker (FC) [2007] UKHL 22 (May 2007) notwithstanding s.89 of the Housing Act 1985.
Substantial claim to sex discrimination
There is a straight forward, provable and answerable claim of sex discrimination instigated by an employee [Nana Ababio] in the employment of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham against Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz.
The comparator of sex discrimination is also found in the case of EL AL Israel Airlines v Danielowitz HCJ 721/94 where the Supreme Court of Israel in Jerusalem sat as the High Court of Justice on 30th November 1994 found that not giving the Respondent Jonathan Danielowitz (employed by EL AL Israel Airlines as a flight attendant) a free airline ticket for his same sex companion amounted to discrimination since a distinction on the basis of the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship is found unjustified. This judgment from a common law jurisdiction was subsequently echoed by the Law Lords in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in the case of Ghaidan v Mendoza heard before the House of Lords in 2004.
On a scale of severity, sex discrimination being applied by a public authority in seeking to evict a homosexual man from his home in order to make him homeless and subject him to eternal detriment is far more severe than an airline refusing a homosexual man the right to a free airline ticket because the consequence of an action resulting in the eviction of a person from his home has greater, more profound and devastating results (such as permanent homelessness) whereas the refusal by an airline to grant a free ticket to a homosexual man (de facto) is a mere inconvenience. Yet it was found that refusing to grant a free airline ticket to a homosexual man amounted to sex discrimination.
Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz the Polish gay partner of the deceased Mr. Sexton was severely distraught and suffered nervous convulsions, trauma, continuing anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, eating disorders and stress as some of the many adverse effects brought about by the emotional effects of bereavement and eternal loss of Mr. Ciechanowicz’s gay partner.
The subsequent actions of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham against Mr. Ciechanowicz seeking to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home so soon after the eternal loss of Mr. Ciechanowicz’s gay partner and the emotional effects of bereavement caused by the death had compounded Mr. Ciechanowicz’s mental anguish in a way defined as torture as set out under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This is in reliance to the inter state case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom (1978) where the ECHR referred to non physical torture, describing ‘the infliction of mental suffering by creating a state of anguish and stress by means other than bodily assault’. From this judgment (Ireland v United Kingdom 1978), it is deemed that mental anguish alone constitutes torture if it reaches a certain level of severity.
The concept of torture being invoked under Article 3 due to amplified mental anguish greatly increases the threshold of damages sought by Mr. Ciechanowicz from the London Borough if Hammersmith & Fulham.
HIGH COURT JURISDICTION
Mr. Ciechanowicz continues to be subjugated to sex discrimination perpetrated against him by employees in the employment of a Public Authority, namely, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham on the grounds of a spurious and unfounded allegation that Mr. Ciechanowicz is an “illegal occupant”. The said public authority is seeking to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home on a concocted premise of him being a purported “illegal occupant”.
As a victim of sex discrimination, Mr. Ciechanowicz is entitled to (i) damages, (ii) General Damages (iii) Special Damages (iv) Quantum Damages (v) Damages arising from torture attributed to Mr. Ciechanowicz’s mental anguish by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and (v) Damages in respect of vicarious liability in excess of £50’000.
Given the anticipated financial value of Mr. Ciechanowicz’s claim for damages arising from sex discrimination, (in excess of £50’000) the said claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under CPR rule 7.1 and Practice Direction 72 paragraph 2.
Mr. Ciechanowicz recognises that the County Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages of more than £30’000, as the value of the anticipated damages surpasses the £50,000 threshold the matter becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Given the value of the Claim, it is reasonably argued that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear Mr. Ciechanowicz’s case under CPR rule 7.1 and Practice Direction 72 paragraph 2.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
===Legislation===
;{{flagicon|Australia}} [[Australia]]
* [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/171/top.htm Sex Discrimination Act 1984]
;{{flagicon|Canada}} [[Canada]]
*{{flagicon|Ontario}} [[Ontario Human Rights Code]] [[1962]]
*[[Canadian Human Rights Act]] [[1977]]
;{{flagicon|Hong Kong}} [[Hong Kong]]
*Sex Discrimination Ordinance (1996) [[Image:Flag of Hong Kong 1959.svg|22px|Flag of Hong Kong (before 1997)]]
;{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom]]
*[[Equal Pay Act 1970]] - provides for equal pay for comparable work
*[[Sex Discrimination Act 1975]] - makes discrimination against women or men, including discrimination on the grounds of marital status, illegal in the workplace
*[[Human Rights Act 1998]] - provides more scope for redressing all forms of discriminatory imbalances
;{{flagicon|United States}} [[United States]]
*[[Equal Pay Act of 1963]][http://www.finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_206_d] - (part of the [[Fair Labor Standards Act]]) - prohibits wage discrimination by employers and labor organizations based on sex
*[[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]][http://www.finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21] - broadly prohibits discrimination in the workplace including hiring, firing, workforce reduction, benefits, and sexually harassing conduct
*Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - covers discrimination based upon pregnancy in the workplace<ref>{{cite web
|last=
|first=
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
|title=Pregnancy Discrimination Act
|work=
|publisher=
|date=
|url=http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-discrimination-harassment/employment-employee-pregnancy-discrimination-top/pregnancy-discrimination-act.html
|format=
| doi =
|accessdate=2008-05-14}}</ref>
==Caste discrimination==
According to [[UNICEF]] and [[Human Rights Watch]], [[caste]] discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide.<ref>[http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_discrimination.html Discrimination], [[UNICEF]]</ref><ref>[http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/08/29/global1815.htm Global Caste Discrimination]</ref><ref>[http://www.newint.org/issue380/facts.htm Caste - The Facts]</ref> That is one in every 25 people in the world.
==Employment discrimination==
{{Main|Employment discrimination}}
The American federal laws that protect against:
* race, color and national origin discrimination include the [http://www.finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 Civil Rights Act of 1964], [http://www.finduslaw.com/executive_order_number_11478_equal_employment_opportunity_in_the_federal_government Executive Order Number 11478] among other numerous laws that protect people from [http://www.finduslaw.com/employment_discrimination/race_national_origin race, color and national origin discrimination].
* [http://www.finduslaw.com/federal_employment_law/employment_discrimination/harassment_gender_sex_pregnancy sex and gender discrimination] include the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and [http://www.finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_206_d Equal Pay Act of 1963].
* [http://www.finduslaw.com/employment_discrimination/age age discrimination] include the [http://www.finduslaw.com/age_discrimination_in_employment_act_of_1967_adea_29_u_s_code_chapter_14 Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967].
* [http://www.finduslaw.com/employment_discrimination/disability physical and mental disability discrimination] include the [http://www.finduslaw.com/americans_with_disabilities_act_of_1990_ada_42_u_s_code_chapter_126 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]
* [http://www.finduslaw.com/employment_discrimination/religion religious discrimination]include the [http://www.finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 Civil Rights Act of 1964].
* [http://www.finduslaw.com/employment_discrimination/military_status military status discrimination] include the [http://www.finduslaw.com/vietnam_era_veterans_readjustment_assistance_act_of_1974_vevraa_38_us_code_chapter_42_4211_4215 Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974]
*[[Merrill Lynch#Alleged_charges_of_discrimination_towards_minority_employees|An example of employment discrimination]]
Most other western nations have similar laws protecting these groups.
==Language discrimination==
People are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their preferred [[language]] is associated with a particular group, class or category. Commonly, the preferred language is just another [[attribute]] of separate [[ethnic group]]s.
==Reverse discrimination and affirmative action==
{{Main|Reverse discrimination}}
'''Reverse discrimination''' is an elusive term that is used to describe policies or acts that benefit a historically economically disadvantaged group (e.g. women, blacks, hispanics, the disabled, people over 40 years of age, etc). Most academic and expert opponents of preferential policies that favor historically-discriminated groups, such as [[Carl Cohen]], would avoid the term "reverse discrimination" on the grounds that "discrimination is discrimination" and that the label "reverse" is a misnomer (a point that experts on both sides of the issue generally agree with). Groups such as the American Civil Rights Institute, run by [[Ward Connerly]], have opted for the more legally precise terms "race preference", "gender preference," or "preferential treatment" generally, since these terms are contained and defined within existing civil rights law, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In this vein, Ward Connerly has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California ([[California Proposition 209 (1996)]]), Washington (1998 - I-200), and [[Michigan]] (the [[Michigan Civil Rights Initiative]] - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006). California's initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor [[Pete Wilson]] to the [[University of California]] Board of Regents. Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008. The language of these ballot initiatives all use the terms "preferential treatment" as their operative clauses.
Academics such as Cohen, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2, have argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socio-economically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action should be permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted. Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that lead to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on [[June 23]], [[2003]].
Bloggers and internet resources against preferential types of affirmative action include [http://www.discriminations.us/ John Rosenberg's Discriminations], [http://www.adversity.net Tim Fay's Adversity.net], and [http://www.chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php Chetly Zarko's Power, Politics, & Money].
==Disability discrimination==
{{Main|Ableism}}
{{Expand-section|further examples of disability discrimination|date=June 2007}}
People with [[disabilities]] face discrimination in all levels of society. The attitude that disabled individuals are inferior to non-disabled individuals is called "ableism".
[[Chronic pain]] is a debilitating condition which is often neglected in modern society. According to the [[American Chiropractic Association]], over 50% of all working US citizens complain of back pain each year. An estimated 80% of the population will experience back pain at some point in their life. Many times pain can become chronic and debilitating. [[Ergonomic]] seating and work environments are not only be a reasonable accommodation for those who suffer, they are also a preventative measure to counteract the soaring cost of medical treatment for pain conditions. Ergonomic seating in all public institutions would be a positive step to providing access to public services for all those who need it. In the United States, the [[Americans with Disabilities Act]] provides guidelines for providing wheelchair access for public institutions, but ergonomic devices for those who suffer from pain are something that has yet to be implemented. This is just one of many accessibility issues still faced by disabled individuals.
Disabled people may also face discrimination by employers. They may find problems with securing employment as their handicap can be seen as a risk to the company, and once in employment they may find they are overlooked for promotion opportunities. Similarly, if an employee becomes disabled while employed they may also find themselves being managed out the company by HR departments. Unsympathetic employers can make life very difficult for such employees and can often make their health problems worse. Disability discrimination laws mean that in theory the employee has a method of redress in such instances.
==Theories==
===Egalitarianism===
[[Social theories]] such as [[Egalitarianism]] claim that [[social equality]] should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/mn/law/concivrig.html#30 |title=Civil rights |accessdate=2006 }}bbb;
</ref>
Taking into account the capacity to perceive pain and/or suffering that all animals have, '[[abolitionist]]' or '[[vegan]]' egalitarianism maintains that every individual, regardless their species, should have at least the basic right not to be an object.{{Fact|date=February 2008}} See also [[speciesism]].
===Conservative and Anarcho-Capitalist===
In contrast, [[conservatism|conservative]] writer and law professor [[Matthias Storme]] has claimed that the freedom of discrimination in human societies is a fundamental human right, or more precisely, the basis of all fundamental freedoms and therefore the most fundamental freedom. Author [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], in an essay<ref>[http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html]{{cite web |last=Hoppe |first=Hans-Hermann | year =2001 |url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html |title=Democracy: The God That Failed |accessdate=2006 }}</ref> about his book [[Democracy: The God That Failed]], asserts that a natural social order is characterized by increased discrimination.
==References==
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->
<references />
<!--See Richey, Warren. "Affirmative Action's Evolution." The CS Monitor. Staff Writer of the Christian Science Montior, 2003. [[3 May]] [[2007]] <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0328/p01s01-usju.html>. -->
==See also==
* [[Adultism]]
* [[Ableism]]
* [[Apartheid]]
* [[Allport's scale]]
* [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Classism]]
* [[Eagle feather law]]
* [[Economic discrimination]]
* [[English-only movement]]
* [[Homophobia]]
* [[Institutionalized discrimination]]
* [[Lookism]]
* [[Police Brutality]]
* [[Heightism]]
* [[Racism]]
* [[Sexism]]
* [[Speciesism]]
* [[Anthropocentrism]]
* [[Second-class citizen]]
* [[State racism]]
* [[Racial segregation]]
* [[List of anti-discrimination acts]]
* [[Equal opportunity]]
* [[Egalitarianism]]
* [[Affirmative action]]
* [[Reverse discrimination]]
* [[Equal rights]]
* [[Social issues]]
* [[Intercultural competence]]
* [[Neurodiversity]]
* [[Genetic discrimination]]
*[[Public international law]]
==External links==
* [http://jweissdiary.blogspot.com/2006/03/for-newcomers.html Transgender Workplace Diversity blog]
* [http://www.discriminations.us Discriminations blog]
* [http://czechdaily.wordpress.com Discrimination in the Czech Republic: When A Bookseller Prefers Older To Younger]
* [http://www.lookism.info/ Project Lookism]
*[http://facialdiscrimination.wordpress.com] Facial Discrimination
* Legal definitions
** [http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/index.html Australia]
** [http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/human_rights_act-en.asp Canada]
** [http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/ch2.html Russia]
** [http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html US]
* [http://www.finduslaw.com/taxonomy_menu/12/23 Employment Discrimination Laws in the United States]
[[Category:Discrimination| ]]
[[ar:تمييز]]
[[bg:Дискриминация]]
[[ca:Discriminació]]
[[cs:Diskriminace]]
[[da:Diskrimination]]
[[de:Diskriminierung]]
[[es:Discriminación]]
[[eo:Diskriminacio]]
[[fa:تبعیض]]
[[fr:Discrimination]]
[[ko:차별]]
[[id:Diskriminasi]]
[[it:Discriminazione]]
[[he:אפליה]]
[[ka:დისკრიმინაცია]]
[[lt:Diskriminacija]]
[[hu:Diszkrimináció]]
[[ms:Diskriminasi]]
[[nl:Discriminatie]]
[[ja:差別]]
[[pl:Dyskryminacja (psychologia społeczna)]]
[[pt:Discriminação]]
[[rmy:Diskriminaciya]]
[[ru:Дискриминация]]
[[simple:Discrimination]]
[[sk:Diskriminácia (znevýhodňovanie)]]
[[sl:Diskriminacija]]
[[sr:Дискриминација]]
[[fi:Syrjintä]]
[[sv:Diskriminering]]
[[uk:Дискримінація]]
[[vls:Discriminoatie]]
[[yi:דיסקרימינאציע]]
[[zh:歧視]]