지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
For the first time, the European Court of Justice introduced the concept of indirect discrimination in Jenkins and Bilka in the 1980s, following the US Supreme Court, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited practices of disparate impact as well as disparate treatment in Griggs in 1971. Now the concept of indirect discrimination prevails in all anti-discrimination laws of the EU as one of the two types of discrimination to be prohibited just as the disparate impact theory does in US anti-discrimination law. Both prohibition of indirect discrimination and the disparate impact analysis are broadly similar in that under both US and EU anti-discrimination law an employment practice which has an adverse impact on a particular group of, for instance, sex or race is prohibited unless the practice is justified otherwise. Nonetheless they have been developed in such a distinctively different way that scholars from Europe find the concept of indirect discrimination useful to eliminate structural discrimination whereas those from the US suspect that the disparate impact theory is of limited use. This article looks at the differences in the application of the disparate impact analysis and the prohibition of indirect discrimination which give rise to such different views. It compares both of them in several sub-domains of their application: the scope for the two theories to be applied; the existence of a specific employment practice and the extent of its adverse impact which a claimant has to prove; the objective justification for the practice which a respondent has to prove.
The comparison between the disparate impact theory in the US andthe prohibition of indirect discrimination in the EU demonstrates that overall the latter protects those discriminated against better than the former. Firstly the prohibition of indirect discrimination in the EU has expanded its scope to prohibit discrimination in areas other than employment, such as education, social security and access to goods and service while its US equivalent is confined to employment only and difficult to apply in equal pay claims. Secondly, the disparate impact theory strictly requires a claimant to prove a significant degree of adverse impact on a particular group by means of statistical methods and the existence of a particular employment practice which causes the adverse impact. However under the prohibition of indirect sex
discrimination in the EU a claimant is not required to show in relation to equal pay a specific employment practice which gives rise to an adverse impact on a particular sex. In addition anti-discrimination claimants do not have to show that the adverse impact on them is statistically significant. Lastly, EU anti-discrimination law requires employers to demonstrate a relatively strict standard of objective justification in comparison with US anti-discrimination law which does not have a uniform standard of business necessity and imposes burden of proof on workers in relation to an alternative employment practice.
The comparison between the disparate impact theory in the US andthe prohibition of indirect discrimination in the EU demonstrates that overall the latter protects those discriminated against better than the former. Firstly the prohibition of indirect discrimination in the EU has expanded its scope to prohibit discrimination in areas other than employment, such as education, social security and access to goods and service while its US equivalent is confined to employment only and difficult to apply in equal pay claims. Secondly, the disparate impact theory strictly requires a claimant to prove a significant degree of adverse impact on a particular group by means of statistical methods and the existence of a particular employment practice which causes the adverse impact. However under the prohibition of indirect sex
discrimination in the EU a claimant is not required to show in relation to equal pay a specific employment practice which gives rise to an adverse impact on a particular sex. In addition anti-discrimination claimants do not have to show that the adverse impact on them is statistically significant. Lastly, EU anti-discrimination law requires employers to demonstrate a relatively strict standard of objective justification in comparison with US anti-discrimination law which does not have a uniform standard of business necessity and imposes burden of proof on workers in relation to an alternative employment practice.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 차별적 영향 이론과 간접차별 법리의 확산과 발전
Ⅲ. 적용영역과 범위 비교
Ⅳ. 세부 요소별 비교
Ⅴ. 맺으며
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (22)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 구미영 / 2007 / “성별 등을 사유로 한 차별” 개념의 의미와 입증 / 노동법연구 (23) : 1 ~ 38
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 최윤희 / 2006 / 미국에서의 결과적 차별행위(Disparate Impact) 이론에 대한 고찰 / 노동법연구 (20) : 1 ~ 34
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 조용만 / 2006 / 고용차별 해소를 위한 적극적 조치의 정당성 - 미국 판례법에 기초한 남녀고용평등법의 해석론 / 노동법연구 (20) : 35 ~ 85
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김복기 / 2008 / 미국의 적극적 평등실현조치와 위헌심사기준 / 노동법연구 (24) : 89 ~ 110
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 오계택 / 2007 / 미국과 영국의 임금차별 관련 제도에 대한 비교분석 / 노동리뷰
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 최윤희 / 2006 / 미국에서의 결과적 차별행위(Disparate Impact) 이론에 대한 고찰 / 노동법연구 (20) : 1 ~ 34
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 조용만 / 2006 / 고용차별 해소를 위한 적극적 조치의 정당성 - 미국 판례법에 기초한 남녀고용평등법의 해석론 / 노동법연구 (20) : 35 ~ 85
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김복기 / 2008 / 미국의 적극적 평등실현조치와 위헌심사기준 / 노동법연구 (24) : 89 ~ 110
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 오계택 / 2007 / 미국과 영국의 임금차별 관련 제도에 대한 비교분석 / 노동리뷰
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
장애인차별금지법상의 차별과 판단 : 노동영역을 중심으로
노동법논총
2009 .04
-
평등과 노동권에 근거한 (영미)고용차별법의 가치론적 이해
노동법연구
2009 .03
-
미국에서의 결과적 차별행위(Disparate Impact) 이론에 대한 고찰
노동법연구
2006 .06
-
청소년에게 인지되는 차별피해가 차별가해 경험에 미치는 영향: 차별목격과 차별감수성의 조절효과를 중심으로
피해자학연구
2019 .01
-
한국에서 차별금지법 제정에 있어서 성적지향을 둘러싼 갈등과 전망
중앙법학
2014 .09
-
동아시아 국가의 고용차별금지법 비교 : 한국, 일본, 대만을 중심으로
노동법학
2012 .06
-
고령자 고용촉진을 위한 연령차별금지의 확립과 정년제의 개선
노동법논총
2006 .12
-
고용차별판단 심사기준
노동법논총
2017 .04
-
비정규직 차별시정제도의 실효성 연구
노동법학
2018 .03
-
유럽연합의 단시간 근로자들에 대한 법적 보호
노동법학
2010 .06
-
차별금지법제의 현황
저스티스
2010 .12
-
간접차별금지 실효성 강화를 위한 구제방법과 절차 : 독일 판례분석을 중심으로
산업관계연구
2017 .06
-
Understanding the perceptions and attitudes of older employees toward age discrimination in South Korea
International Journal of Gerontological Social Welfare
2015 .06
-
Anti-Discrimination Laws of Foreign Countries
[NHRC] 국가인권위원회 발간자료
2004 .01
-
비정규직 차별금지의 쟁점과 과제
노동법학
2012 .06
-
포괄적 차별금지법의 필요성 : 평등기본법을 위하여
이화젠더법학
2018 .12
-
고용차별에 대한 소고 : 개관 및 몇 가지 고려사항들
노동법연구
2009 .09
-
비정규직 차별시정례(중노위ㆍ법원)에 대한 검토(Ⅲ)
노동법학
2010 .09
-
고용에서의 연령차별금지의 법적 현황과 과제
노동법연구
2003 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-336-000520696