Originally published here.

This dissertation  examines  workplace  discrimination  from  a  legal  perspective. The author had a dual purpose. One is the analysis of the legislative regulation and case law of the United  Kingdom  (hereafter  the  UK)  in  workplace  discrimination  cases.  The  other  is  a comparison of UK and Hungarian law in this area of law. The relevance of the latter choice is given by the fact that the author of the present work is Hungarian, ie a citizen of a country whose legal system differs from the common law  system of the UK.  Although workplace discrimination is a problem in both countries, the practices that address it are only partially similar. The similarities and differences formed the basis of the comparison.

Given that this dissertation is being written in an English university degree, the author has decided to compare Hungarian law to UK law as basis.  The author chose document analysis as his research method. He examined the legislative regulation of discrimination in the two countries as well as the case law  of  the  courts  in  discrimination  cases  through  the  lens  of  comparative  law.  Country specificities and differences stem from different legal systems. The similarities indicate that the  issue  of discrimination  is at  the root  of  morality;  the  rules of  morality are  the  same everywhere in the world.

The author focuses on the reasons and consequences of the decision in relation to the Follow case and how the judgment will affect the future development of UK law. The summary chapter  summarizes the key findings of the research and the key similarities and differences between the two legal systems related to discrimination. The regulatory principles of  the two  states  are practically the  same  but  there are  differences between  the types  of authorities dealing with cases, and the practices of the authorities also differ.

Reviewing the acts and cases examined, the following findings and conclusions can be drawn. In both countries, addressing discrimination, including discrimination in the workplace, is part of the legal order. In the UK, the ET and EAT are the forum for cases and only the most contentious cases reach the Supreme Court or the House of Lords. In Hungarian practice, cases were investigated in the first instance before 1 January 2021 by an independent authority, ETA. ETA was not a court, but its decisions were generally accepted by the parties, otherwise they could be enforced in court.

From 2021, the EAT integrated into the Ombudsman's office and continues to operate as one of its directorates. Before March 31, 2020, the Hungarian court system was three-tiered, then became two-tiered with the dissolution of the Administrative and Labour Courts (Courts + Curia of Hungary). Here, too, there is a possible third level, the Constitutional Court of Hungary. It is important to note, however, that this is not an appeal forum. An application may be made to the Constitutional Court if the claimant has exhausted all other remedies.

The two legal systems treat the problem of discrimination in essentially the same way. In both countries, the equality act lists cases of discrimination - the Hungarian list is practically more than the British with ‘other property’. This allows Hungarian case law to apply a less narrow interpretation than English. However, as we have seen, the scope of interpretation of ‘other property’ is still narrower than the almost limitless interpretation of the ECJ and the ECtHR. At the same time, the principles of international law prevail in the judicial practice of both states.

The practice of both states also applies the principle of reversed burden of proof in workplace discrimination cases. This means that in discrimination cases, the claimant needs to assume only that he has been discriminated against based on a protected characteristic and the defendant must prove that there has been no discrimination or that it has applied only reasonable and proportionate restrictions. However, the difference is that the Hungarian courts accept the reasonable arguments of the defendant as grounds for exculpation in each case, while the UK courts themselves decide on the reasonableness of the restrictions.

Discrimination can take many forms, be it well-intentioned or even malicious. This dissertation examined some of the most serious and significant highlights of the UK and Hungary. However, whatever the appearance may be, discriminatory behaviour is ever harmful, and more and more people are taking a stand against it and challenging employers and entire institutions in court or labour court.

You can read the complete article here.