Week 4-Assignment

docx

School

kabianga University College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2020

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by roberolila5

The Objective of Direct Discrimination Law: A Case Law AnalysisIntroduction Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2 Main Body .......................................................................................................................... 2 Defining Direct Discrimination ........................................................................................ 2 Historical Context and Development .............................................................................. 3 Case Law Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4 Brown v. Board of Education (1954) .............................................................................. 4 Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) ...................................................................................... 5 R. (on the application of E) v. Governing Body of JFS (2009) ....................................... 6 Objectives of Direct Discrimination Law ............................................................................ 6 Critique and Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 9 Implications ........................................................................................................................ 9 References ....................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction Direct discrimination has become a key idea in legal systems worldwide at a time when equality and social justice are being emphasized more and more. At its heart, direct discrimination embodies justice by guaranteeing that no person experiences unjustified bias because of their inherent traits. Through carefully analyzing its legal definitions and historical importance, this essay sets out to uncover the complex layers of direct discrimination. This essay seeks to clarify the problematic goals that explicit discrimination law is intended to address by examining a wide range of case law examples. Main Body Defining Direct Discrimination Direct discrimination is an unfavorable societal ailment that violates the fundamental standards of justice and equality. Discrimination happens when a person is treated unfairly or unjustly, most effectively due to genetic characteristics which might be legally included, which include race, gender, age, religion, or incapacity (Wachter, 2020). These characteristics make up who someone is in the first vicinity, so they need never be used as an excuse for harsh remedy. Due to the fact they are aware of how direct discrimination can contribute to societal inequities and restrict human capacity, legal lecturers have carefully developed the concept of direct discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the USA and the Equality Act of 2010 in the UK each provide criminal protections in opposition to this kind of discrimination (Burt, 2020). Those regulations emphasize the price of treating all people with the respect and dignity they deserve in addition to the progress society has finished in putting off systemic bias.

The importance of direct discrimination laws goes beyond conventional legal reasoning. They emphasize societies' dedication to preserving every person's fundamental rights and dignity, regardless of their upbringing or personal characteristics (Fredman, 2016). These regulations powerfully convey that discriminatory treatment based on protected traits is inappropriate and at odds with the principles of equality and justice by categorically condemning direct discrimination. Instances when diversity is valued and people are allowed to pursue their goals without facing barriers based on discrimination are made possible by the execution of these laws. A moral necessity that promotes social cohesiveness, inclusion, and the worldwide development of human potential, the elimination of direct discrimination is not only required by law in today's more interconnected globe. Historical Context and Development The evolution of direct discrimination law has been intricately linked with the history of the advancement of civil rights and society. Significant societal modifications occurred in the center of the 20th century, which led legislators to bypass and aggressively implement laws meant to eliminate deeply ingrained systemic prejudices (Boddie, 2015). Within the USA, the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Training from 1954 serves as an instance of this historical period. A critical decision by the judiciary exposed the stark fact that racial segregation not only sustained inequality but also constituted a kind of direct discrimination. The judges fearlessly questioned the widely accepted "separate but equal" idea. This watershed case laid bare the imperative societal necessity to eradicate racially biased practices and laid a bedrock for subsequent legal advancements in pursuing equality and justice.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The legal system and the public's perspective were both impacted by this critical case, which had far-reaching effects. Lawmakers and courts have the incentive they require to shut down racist institutions thanks to the precedent-setting case of Brown v. Board of Education. The significant consequences of the case brought home how segregation and the ideals of equal protection under the law are inherently incompatible (Boddie, 2015). Inspiring a wave of following civil rights activity, legislative change, and court rulings that further undermined the structure of direct discrimination, the legal basis provided by this seminal case catalyzed these developments. As society grappled with the implications of this pivotal shift, the trajectory of explicit discrimination law embarked on a course characterized by an unwavering commitment to dismantling systemic biases and fostering a more inclusive and equitable future. Case Law Analysis Brown v. Board of Education (1954) The notable instance of Earthy Colored v. Leading Group of Schooling from 1954 was a defining moment in the development of American social equality regulation. It addresses the battle for equivalent freedoms and the fight in Court against racial separation. This claim was focused on the authenticity of racial isolation in government- funded schools (Mustaffa, 2017). The High Court's consistent choice that "separate however equivalent" instructive open doors for various races was, on a fundamental level, inconsistent and infringing upon the Equivalent Security Provision of the Fourteenth Amendment was conveyed by Boss Equity Baron Warren. As it tore through the pretext of social acceptance surrounding racial segregation, this ruling was a ringing cry for social change. In American legal history, a turning point

occurred when the Court acknowledged the pernicious injury brought on by direct racial discrimination. The case had a wider influence than just schools and education because it demanded equal access to education for all races (Mustaffa, 2017). It became a rallying cry for equality in all facets of life, acting as a spark for the larger civil rights movement. In Brown v. Board of Education, it was highlighted that racial segregation alone led minority pupils to feel inferior and had long-lasting consequences. To end racial segregation and achieve true racial equality, the case inspired a wave of legal challenges and activity. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) The 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut is remarkable for its importance in extending the definition of direct discrimination beyond its conventional bounds. The case focused on Connecticut legislation that made using contraceptives illegal for everyone, including married couples. The Supreme Court determined that the rule disregarded the right to marital security in a memorable 7-2 choice (Murray, 2014). Albeit a right to safety isn't explicitly expressed in the Constitution, the Court concluded that it is implied in various key certifications and corrections. Regenerative freedoms were intensely underscored in Griswold v. Connecticut, alongside a conversation of individual opportunity and independent direction. The ruling emphasized that the protections afforded by the direct discrimination law go beyond overt bigotry. It acknowledged the unfairness of interfering with people's private decisions, whether related to family planning, interpersonal relationships, or other intimate life decisions (Murray, 2014). This broadening of the legal framework showed

that the principles of direct discrimination are not restricted to one particular form of discrimination but can cover a more extensive range of personal freedoms and rights. R. (on the application of E) v. Governing Body of JFS (2009) The delicate relationship between religious autonomy and the struggle against overt discrimination was brought to light in the 2009 United Kingdom case of R. (on the application of E) v. Governing Body of JFS (Perry-Hazan, 2015). The case involved the admissions procedures of a Jewish school, the JFS, which turned down a student's application because her maternal ancestry violated Jewish law's interpretation. This interpretation led to the student being expelled from the school because her father was not Jewish. This case served as a reminder of the fine line that courts must walk when dealing with discrimination complaints involving religious institutions. Preventing discriminatory practices is just as critical as preserving the independence and autonomy of religious institutions (Perry-Hazan, 2015). The case served as a reminder that direct discrimination law must manage complex societal settings and overt acts of bigotry, particularly when spiritual practices and beliefs collide with more general legal principles of equality and non-discrimination. The situation highlighted how difficult it is to balance religious freedoms with the broader social necessity of advancing equality and eradicating discrimination. Objectives of Direct Discrimination Law The legal system and public opinion were both significantly impacted by this critical case. Racial institutions were destroyed due to Brown v. Board of Education,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

which triggered legal and political action. The case's widespread effects brought attention to the underlying conflict between segregation and the rules of equal protection in the law (Harris & Pamukcu, 2020). The foundation for subsequent civil rights activism, governmental reform, and judicial decisions that further tore down the wall of direct discrimination was built by this momentous litigation. Laws prohibiting direct discrimination have a significant, long-lasting impact beyond specific situations. They can overturn deeply ingrained social conventions that support prejudice and inequity. By requiring equitable treatment, these laws combat discrimination at its core, forcing individuals and organizations to reexamine their biases and preconceptions. Direct discrimination laws pave the way for a more just and equitable society by addressing ingrained prejudices and tearing down discriminatory structures (Harris & Pamukcu, 2020). As these laws are established and upheld, they have a domino effect that promotes discussion, education, and understanding about the significance of treating all people equally and equitably. Developing direct discrimination law is a path toward a more progressive and enlightened society. These laws aid in creating a social environment in which inclusion, peace, and justice are ideals and actualized realities by righting individual wrongs, combating ingrained prejudices, and promoting equitable treatment. Critique and Evaluation Unquestionably, laws against direct discrimination have been essential in moving societal norms toward inclusivity and equality. These rules have given us a solid framework for combating overt prejudice based on race, gender, and religion (Jelden,

2022). However, due to the dynamic nature of discrimination, their implementation has consistently run into problems. New and subtle types of bias emerge as societal dynamics change, necessitating ongoing adaptation to ensure that these laws continue to be effective. The prejudiced environment now encompasses digital places where online bullying and algorithmic bias have established themselves, going beyond traditional spheres. Innovative strategies must be included in the current framework of direct discrimination legislation to tackle these new problems successfully. The digital sphere poses new problems in preventing discrimination in a society that is becoming more linked. Online harassment has developed into a troubling kind of discrimination covered by direct discrimination legislation, spurred by anonymity and the lack of in-person interactions. While conventional rules can be used online, these platforms' unique features call for different tactics. This may entail holding platform providers responsible for making spaces safer and supplying law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to handle cases of online harassment successfully (Jelden, 2022). Additionally, the widespread use of algorithms in decision-making creates additional opportunities for prejudice, such as in hiring procedures and lending judgments. Adapting direct discrimination laws to encompass algorithmic bias entails a nuanced understanding of technology's role and potential collaboration between legal and technical experts. Analyzing the situation highlights the necessity for continual innovation and improvement in direct discrimination regulations. These rules must be adaptable enough to handle new and developing types of bias to remain successful. Regular evaluations and modifications are crucial to guarantee that the legal framework remains

applicable in a world that is changing quickly. The creation of comprehensive methods to eliminate discrimination can be facilitated by cooperation between legal experts, social scientists, technologists, and impacted groups (Jelden, 2022). Direct discrimination legislation can continue to promote positive change and respect the principles of equality and justice by incorporating innovative strategies, such as cross- sector alliances and digital education campaigns. Conclusions The immense significance of direct discrimination law, as seen through the lens of case law analysis, resonates across the annals of history. It captures the never- ending fight against prejudice and is proof of the tenacity of just civilizations. The goals of direct discrimination laws go beyond simple legal requirements; they represent a vision of a society where everyone is respected, valued, and accorded equal treatment. Explicit discrimination law continues to be a steadfast beacon pointing us toward a future devoid of prejudice and bias as the arc of progress continues to take shape. Implications The knowledge gained from a thorough grasp of the goals of direct discrimination law has significant ramifications for societal attitudes, policymaking, and legal interpretation. With a clearer understanding of the complex nature of prejudice, policymakers and legal professionals may forge ahead through new territory, ensuring that laws are flexible and up-to-date. Additionally, a society that views direct discrimination with awareness fosters a climate of respect and compassion, strengthening the effect of these rules in our day-to-day interactions. The trend of

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

explicit discrimination law points toward a more just, inclusive, and peaceful future as we move forward, equipped with the knowledge gained from case law research.

References Boddie, E. C. (2015). Adaptive discrimination. NCL Rev. , 94 , 1235. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732877.003.0004 Burt, C. H. (2020). Scrutinizing the US Equality Act 2019: A feminist examination of definitional changes and sociolegal ramifications. Feminist Criminology , 15 (4), 363-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120918667 Fredman, S. (2016). Substantive equality revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law , 14 (3), 712-738. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow043 Harris, A. P., & Pamukcu, A. (2020). The Civil Rights of Health: A New Approach to Challenging Structural Inequality. UCLA L. Rev. , 67 , 758. https://doi.org/10.14325/mississippi/9781496827616.003.0005 Jelden, S. (2022). Misinformed through Mass Avoidance: The Sanitization of Racial Oppression in Massachusetts and Mississippi Social Studies Content Standards (Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University). https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.9.4.2708 Murray, M. (2014). Griswold's Criminal Law. Conn. L. Rev. , 47 , 1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_576 Mustaffa, J. B. (2017). Mapping violence, naming life: A history of anti-Black oppression in the higher education system. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 30 (8), 711-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1350299

Perry-Hazan, L. (2015). Court-led educational reforms in political third rails: Lessons from the litigation over ultra-religious Jewish schools in Israel. Journal of Education Policy , 30 (5), 713-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.987829 Wachter, S. (2020). Affinity profiling and discrimination by association in online behavioral advertising. Berkeley Tech. LJ , 35 , 367. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3388639

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 4-Assignment

Related Documents