Oct 16, 2020 07:50 PM
(This post was last modified: Oct 17, 2020 05:02 PM by C C.
Edit Reason: added "Equality Act guidance for charities"
)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020...-only-rule
INTRO: A woman seeking housing in east London who alleged racial discrimination when a housing charity reserved its properties for Orthodox Jewish people has lost her case at the supreme court. In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.
A lawyer for the non-Jewish woman, who has not been named, argued that the policy “smacked of ‘no blacks, no dogs, no Irish’,” a reference to signs pinned up by some landlords decades ago. But the high court, the court of appeal and now the supreme court have all ruled it was legal because it overcame the social and economic disadvantage faced by the community of Haredi Jews in the area. Some do not speak English and face antisemitism, partly because of their traditional dress.
The charity’s 470 homes were listed by the London borough of Hackney as part of the wider social housing supply, which is under pressure in that part of the capital. Six of them came up during a period when the complainant, a mother of four, was at the top of the waiting list, but she was offered none. She alleged that the council and housing charity were letting Orthodox Jewish families “jump the queue”.
The housing association’s charitable objectives state it is “primarily for the benefit of the Orthodox Jewish community”. The application form for housing asks if applicants are “strictly observant of shabbath and kashrut [dietary laws]”, which synagogue and schools they use and whether they are ethnically “Orthodox Jewish Ashkenazi” or “Orthodox Jewish Sephardic”.
Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010 [below], in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance... (MORE)
- - - - -
(UK) Equality Act guidance for charities
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...-charities
[...] 4.4 How is this different from what went before? The key difference is that the new Act explicitly requires charities to justify any restriction, based on a protected characteristic, on who can benefit from the charity. The restriction must be justified using either of the two tests outlined above, or another exception permitted by the Act.
INTRO: A woman seeking housing in east London who alleged racial discrimination when a housing charity reserved its properties for Orthodox Jewish people has lost her case at the supreme court. In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.
A lawyer for the non-Jewish woman, who has not been named, argued that the policy “smacked of ‘no blacks, no dogs, no Irish’,” a reference to signs pinned up by some landlords decades ago. But the high court, the court of appeal and now the supreme court have all ruled it was legal because it overcame the social and economic disadvantage faced by the community of Haredi Jews in the area. Some do not speak English and face antisemitism, partly because of their traditional dress.
The charity’s 470 homes were listed by the London borough of Hackney as part of the wider social housing supply, which is under pressure in that part of the capital. Six of them came up during a period when the complainant, a mother of four, was at the top of the waiting list, but she was offered none. She alleged that the council and housing charity were letting Orthodox Jewish families “jump the queue”.
The housing association’s charitable objectives state it is “primarily for the benefit of the Orthodox Jewish community”. The application form for housing asks if applicants are “strictly observant of shabbath and kashrut [dietary laws]”, which synagogue and schools they use and whether they are ethnically “Orthodox Jewish Ashkenazi” or “Orthodox Jewish Sephardic”.
Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010 [below], in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance... (MORE)
- - - - -
(UK) Equality Act guidance for charities
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...-charities
[...] 4.4 How is this different from what went before? The key difference is that the new Act explicitly requires charities to justify any restriction, based on a protected characteristic, on who can benefit from the charity. The restriction must be justified using either of the two tests outlined above, or another exception permitted by the Act.
