Not very clear from the article, but it’s all about retained EU law: CJEU case-law required extension of indirect discrimination protection to eg a short man affected by a height requirement. BA tried to argue s19 was so clear the other way that it was incapable of a conforming interpretation.
EAT disagreed (unsurprisingly IMO given the strength of the “conforming interpretation”/Marleasing rule) saying that you could stretch s19 to read it that way.
S19A is a REULA SI designed to maintain the “short man” protection even post 1/1/24 (from when you generally can’t rely on conforming interpretation to get a UK statute read in a way contrary to its “usual” reading on the basis of EU principles).
Comments