Section 37 law change

Ten of Swords

Last night the Dail voted to amend section 37.1 from the Employment Equality Act 1998

This is a definite step in the right direction as this section represents one of the most blatant examples of legalized discrimination in Ireland. Finally teachers, medical staff and others working for religious run institutes can breathe a little easier as the threat of career freezing and being passed over, or not being hired at all, simply because of their sexuality has been significantly reduced.

I found plenty of articles online that gave scant details, and all agreed that it was a good thing, but it took me quite a bit of searching to find what the actual changes were.

So, here is the law as it was;

37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

And here it is now,

37.—(1) Subject to subsections (1A) and (1B),a religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

(1A) Where an educational or medical institution referred to in subsection (1) is maintained, in whole or in part, by monies provided by the Oireachtas more favourable treatment on the religion ground referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection shall be taken to be discrimination unless—
(a) that treatment does not constitute discrimination on any of the other discriminatory grounds, and
(b) by reason of the nature of the institution’s activities or the context in which the activities are being carried out, the religion or belief of the employee or prospective employee constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement having regard to the institution’s ethos.

(1B) Where an educational or medical institution referred to subsection (1) is maintained, in whole or in part, by monies provided by the Oireachtas, action of the type referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection shall be taken to be discrimination unless by reason of the nature of the employment concerned or the context in which it is carried out—
(a) the action is objectively justified by the institution’s aim of preventing the undermining of the religious ethos of the institution, and
(b) the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

(1C) An action referred to in subsection (1B) shall not be objectively justified in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection, or appropriate and necessary in accordance with paragraph (b) of that subsection, unless the action of the institution is—
(a) rationally and strictly related to the institution’s religious ethos,
(b) a response to conduct of the employee or prospective employee undermining the religious ethos of the institution rather than a response to that employee’s, or prospective employee’s, gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community, and
(c) proportionate to the conduct of the employee or prospective employee, as the case may be, having due regard to—
(i) any other action the employer may take in the circumstances,
(ii) the consequences of that action for that employee or prospective employee,
(iii) the employee’s or prospective employee’s right to privacy, and
(iv) the actual damage caused to the religious ethos of the institution by the conduct of that employee or prospective employee.

Perhaps I am not interpreting this correctly but to me it seems that the amendments do not apply to an institute that is not in receipt of any government money, so this is not as robust as it could have been which is disappointing. But I still feel that, while the overall goal should be a repeal of this section entirely, this is a very positive step.

Leonard Hofstadter

I think there was something about constitutionality or having to go to a referendum if they got rid of this ridiculous act? With that in mind (and bearing in mind how referenda often end up being about something unrelated, as we saw in the marriage equality referendum and all the lies about surrogacy), I think this is as good as they could have done and is yet another step forward .

L1011

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Perhaps I am not interpreting this correctly but to me it seems that the amendments do not apply to an institute that is not in receipt of any government money, so this is not as robust as it could have been which is disappointing. But I still feel that, while the overall goal should be a repeal of this section entirely, this is a very positive step.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a school in the state that isn't in receipt of government money. However, it does leave private hospitals pretty much all of which have some Catholic ethos (Mater Private, Vincents Private, Hermitage, Blackrock, Bons x4 are all either run by nuns or a deeply religious private individual and are full of religious imagery, etc)

It goes nowhere near far enough - the entire section should have been deleted and if that results in the Catholic Church being brought to court over its recruitment policies I'd be the first to crack open the popcorn for the case...