The minimum standard of scrutiny for the justification defence in the context of indirect discrimination was first set out by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1986). This established that an indirectly discriminatory measure is justified if it meets a real need and is appropriate and necessary for meeting that need. The UK courts’ approach to the concept of proportionality within the context of this justification defence may nevertheless have distinct disadvantages for claimants in comparison with their EU counterparts. The approach of the UK courts is assessed here by considering the development of case law in this area, both in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in the higher courts. When compared to the approach taken by the CJEU, it becomes apparent that there is a significant difference between the ways in which UK courts and the CJEU interpret the justification defence. Findings show that the approach of the UK courts significantly disadvantages claimants, leading to the conclusion that the UK may not be fully compliant with EU law. To remedy this defect, it is suggested that there are at least two practical alternative solutions. The first is that Parliament could incorporate a strict necessity test into the Equality Act. Alternatively, the courts could develop a ‘robust approach’ to proportionality. The outcomes of a large number of employment law cases are examined here, appearing to suggest that the latter approach may have greater benefits for claimants than those associated with adopting a strict necessity test, although it is unlikely that either will find favour with Parliament or the courts.

中文翻译：

---

间接歧视、正当理由和相称性：英国索赔人是否处于劣势？

欧洲法院 (CJEU) 在 Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH 诉 Weber von Hartz (1986) 案中首先规定了间接歧视背景下正当防卫的最低审查标准。这表明，如果间接歧视性措施满足真正的需要，并且对于满足该需要是适当和必要的，那么它就是合理的。然而，与欧盟法院相比，英国法院在此正当理由抗辩的背景下对比例概念的处理方法可能对索赔人具有明显的劣势。此处通过考虑就业上诉法庭和上级法院在该领域判例法的发展来评估英国法院的做法。与欧洲法院所采取的方法相比，很明显，英国法院和欧洲法院对正当防卫的解释方式存在显着差异。调查结果表明，英国法院的做法使原告明显处于不利地位，从而得出英国可能不完全遵守欧盟法律的结论。为了弥补这个缺陷，建议至少有两种实用的替代解决方案。首先是议会可以将严格的必要性测试纳入《平等法》。或者，法院可以针对比例性制定一种“强有力的方法”。这里审查了大量就业法案例的结果，似乎表明后一种方法可能比采用严格必要性测试的方法对索赔人有更大的好处，