In this article it is argued that the CJEU judgment in Parris needs to be revisited to recognise that intersectional discrimination is covered by the EU anti-discrimination Directives. There are several reasons for this. First, a prohibition of intersectional discrimination is now laid down in an EU anti-discrimination Directive (Directive, 2023/970/EC); second, this would fit in with developments in the EU Commission, Council and Parliament; third Parris turns on its own facts; fourth a purposive or capacious interpretation of these Directives already allows for such discrimination to be included in the Directives; fifth, the shift in CJEU case law towards a intra-group comparison for discrimination can make comparisons in intersectional discrimination cases easier. It is argued that without acknowledging that intersectional discrimination is covered by the EU anti-discrimination Directives, victims of such discrimination, like Mr Parris and others, like headscarf wearing women, might be left without a remedy when they suffer discrimination on a combination of grounds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erica Howard (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: