On the 13 July of this year, the UK Government published the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill,1 more commonly called the ‘Great Repeal Bill’. Aside from the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (and with it the proposed ousting of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice), the Bill’s purpose is to ‘convert the acquis’ of EU law and preserve any UK law implementing EU law.2 This will include ‘workers’ rights’ and with it their employment discrimination rights.3 The efficacy of such a move will be limited if the British judges fail to adopt the same interpretations of these rights as their counterparts in the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Over the years of Britain’s membership, there have been many references to Luxembourg to clarify the meaning of particular aspects of the discrimination provisions, with the Court generally giving a more liberal interpretation than the domestic courts had suggested would be their preference. One element of the law largely untouched by this process is the objective justification defence to claims of indirect discrimination. This is because the domestic courts have maintained a fiction that their interpretation is consistent with the EU formula. For no apparent reason, the domestic courts have reworded the EU formula while labelling it as being no different. This presents a major challenge for the Bill. It would be all too easy for Parliament to assume all is well with this aspect of workers’ rights, especially when the judges tell them so. Using a handful of cases, this article exposes the shortfalls within the domestic law and suggests some solutions. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the Bill (which no doubt is due for many amendments), but to focus on one important aspect of discrimination law, both pre- and post-Brexit.

中文翻译：

---

客观理由、较少歧视性的替代方案和“大废除法案”

今年 7 月 13 日，英国政府公布了欧盟（退出）法案，1 通常称为“大废除法案”。除了废除 1972 年《欧洲共同体法》（以及随之而来的撤销法院管辖权的提议）之外，该法案的目的是“转换”欧盟法律，并保留任何执行欧盟法律的英国法律。 2这将包括“工人权利”以及他们的就业歧视权利。3 如果英国法官对这些权利的解释与卢森堡法院的法官不同，那么这一举措的效力将受到限制。多年来，英国多次提及卢森堡，以澄清歧视条款特定方面的含义，法院通常会给出比国内法院所建议的更自由的解释，这将是他们的偏好。这一过程基本未触及的法律要素之一是对间接歧视主张的客观正当理由辩护。这是因为国内法院一直认为他们的解释与欧盟公式一致。无缘无故，国内法院重新措辞了欧盟公式，同时将其标记为没有什么不同。这对法案提出了重大挑战。议会很容易假设工人权利的这方面一切正常，尤其是当法官这样告诉他们时。本文通过少数案例揭示了国内法的不足并提出了一些解决方案。