ABSTRACT
This is a causative element, demanding a connection between the challenged practice and the claimant’s sex, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation, as the case may be. The old definition, still relevant for the residual cases,69 demands that: ‘the proportion of women70 who can comply [with a requirement] is considerably smaller than the proportion of men71 who can comply with it ...’ The current definition in the SDA 1975 for employment matters requires that the provision, practice or criterion ‘would be to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion ...’ of the claimant’s group. The new definitions in the domestic legislation require that the claimant’s group is ‘put at’ a ’particular disadvantage’. The Directive, upon which the new definition is based, uses the verb ‘disadvantages’. These differences should be of little significance in this context,72 especially after the liberal and purposive interpretation given to the phrase ‘can comply’ in the old definition.
