Prof. Susan Easton, the founding editor of the Journal, has in her introduction for the 100th issue set out the history of the International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, highlighted the contributions made and challenges faced in the early days and looked briefly to the future. This concluding piece intends to provide a complementary set of bibliographic snapshots. In doing so, not only does it help mark the 30th anniversary and the 100th issue but it also provides a contribution to the ongoing analysis of representation within legal academic publishing in the literature and within the industry.

This article analyses issues of equality and selection arising from the preparation for, and submissions to, the Research Excellence Framework 2021 (REF2021), the most recent of the UK's cyclical research evaluation exercises, and looks ahead to REF2029. Each REF, and before it RAE, cycle has its own rules, with equality being a matter of particular focus from 2014. While the changes wrought by the Stern review led to a greater number of submitted staff in REF2021, they also potentially caused aspects of equality to be undermined by the flexibility brought about by partially decoupling authors from outputs (which also raised questions about the use of outputs by redundant staff). This article examines the equitability of the rules regarding eligibility regarding submission including the test of significant responsibility; it analyses the approaches taken to the sensitive issues of redundancy and outputs; and it considers the varied interpretations of when to apply for reductions to reflect staff circumstances before outlining potential risks and benefits to equality in the current REF cycle.

This legislative note considers the widespread changes to the Equality Act 2010 which have been made or are set to be made in 2024. These are predominantly but not exclusively as a result of Brexit and the effect of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and see indirect effect give way to express statutory provisions. The breadth of the changes span: aspects of the definitions of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination and the protected characteristic of disability; the unlawful acts of discrimination (regarding discriminatory public statements) and harassment (introducing positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment of employees); changes to the equal pay provisions.

The approach in the United Kingdom to sex-based equal pay has for a long time been distinct from general sex discrimination and from equal pay based on other protected characteristics. This dichotomy allows for a greater focus on sex-based equal pay, in a distinct statutory regime, but also risks creating unnecessary, unintended and detrimental distinctions. This article outlines the different legislative approaches adopted in pursuit of related public policy goals regarding equality and explores, and suggests legislative and interpretative solutions to, a significant issue whereby problematic wording in the Equality Act 2010, and judicial interpretation of it, could unjustifiably leave sex-based claimants in a worse position than those with other protected characteristics with regard to both to injury to feelings and constructive dismissal.

The appointment of recent Attorney-Generals for England and Wales has occasioned much comment about their experience. This paper considers whether, following the transmogrification of the Lord Chancellorship over a decade ago, the backgrounds and activities of recent leaders of the Attorney-General's Office suggest the time is now right for similar changes to the Law Officers’ roles. In doing so, it presents a range of original data on aspects of the role and on characteristics of Attorney-Generals, which suggests that unless self-restraint is exercised (by the Prime Minister and the post-holders) we may ineluctably be on the path to reform.

This article presents a set of snapshots of diversity in the legal academy in response to the call by Steven Vaughan (in The state of the nation: diversity and the British legal academy’ (2016) 50(2) The Law Teacher 255) for greater engagement with, and discussion of, the challenges of diversity within the legal academy. Given the pending anniversaries and historic landmarks, the focus is on the gender balance of students, staff and leadership, the nationality of students and staff (in light of Brexit) and a short note on the place of law within academic institutions (in light of the radical changes proposed by the regulatory body for qualification as a solicitor) which is cross-tabulated with the data on law school leadership and gender. It also references other areas of equality. Further studies of diversity in legal academia are forthcoming but this piece provides a timely contribution.

The Government's latest attempts to reform the House of Lords coincide with a number of significant anniversaries of previous attempts. This article notes the Secretary of State for Justice's adoption of the 100th anniversary of the Parliament Act 1911 as a target to get the reform legislation through, examines what can be learnt from those previous attempts and suggests that the debate over election versus appointment may involve a false dichotomy.

Periodic assessment of UK Higher Education Institutions’ research through the Research Assessment Exercises have included consideration of equality in their operation. The successor Research Excellence Framework (REF) strengthened measures to promote equality and diversity. The Stern review of REF 2014 and subsequent proposals by the funding bodies recognise the need to promote equality and yet some of those proposals may act to increase the scope for inequality.

The Equality Act 2010 was designed to simplify as well as unify Britishdiscrimination law. While there has been some significant unification, there are anumber of areas where it has fallen short with regard to simplification, indeed it hasintroduced or cemented complexity and confusion. This article examines three suchareas concerning two of the protected characteristics (pregnancy/maternity andgender reassignment) and one of the claims (victimisation) within the Equality Act2010.

This is a pre-print of an article that has been accepted for publication in Amicus Curiae (the official journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (a member institute of the School of Advanced Study, University of London). The definitive version appears in issue 104 and will in time appear at http://ials.sas.ac.uk/digital/sas-open-journals/amicus-curiae/amicus-curiae-2015 and/or http://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/issue/archive. This version © the authors.

Career opportunities in legal practice remain significantly gendered, raced and classed in many countries. In particular, features of the organisation and culture of law firms in an era of neoliberalism exemplify how patterns of disadvantage for women and minority ethnic lawyers are sustained. This paper introduces a special issue of papers on the ongoing challenges faced by women and minorities, particularly in the large law firm, - an increasingly important sector of the legal profession. Both the special issue and this paper focus on three initiatives - diversity, work-life balance and wellbeing - purportedly designed to alleviate such disadvantage. The paper argues that distinctive features of capital in the large law firm, while ignoring the structural and underlying conditions for creation and maintenance of such disadvantage, limit the potential of such initiatives at the same time as renewing disadvantage.

With reference to Magistracy, Employment Tribunal reform, House of Lords reform and Volunteer advice services, James Hand and Pat Feast (School of Law, Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth) describe how proposed and actual changes to parts of the legal infrastructure supporting volunteerism are at odds with the mission of the so-called “Big Society” and could tend to diminish volunteerism.

Strained judicial interpretation of British discrimination law is not new; some of the leading House of Lords cases on the European Union law doctrine of Indirect Effect have concerned discrimination law. The interpretative obligation, to read national law in line with EU law, has seen words read in and like being treated with like according to changing mores. However, the disability discrimination case of EBR Attridge Law v Coleman [2010] I.C.R. 242 saw an entire sub-section being read in by an Employment Appeal Tribunal. This article briefly reviews the House of Lords’ approach in earlier cases, primarily through the prism of discrimination law, and then asks, following more recent Employment Appeal Tribunal cases concerning pregnancy discrimination and the protection from victimisation within the Equality Act 2010, whether the high-water mark for judicial re-writing has been reached in Britain and whether compliance with European law can better be attained in other ways.

The 'single' Equality Act 2010 was intended to unify and simplify British discrimination law which had grown-up piecemeal over 40 years. However, a number of protections did not follow the standard model (as originally laid down in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) and remained outside the unification process. Such grounds include trade union membership and the possession of whistle-blower status and past criminal records. This difference has been significant in the government's reaction to the European Court of Human Rights' decision in Redfearn v. UK regarding membership of political parties, where the government opted to expand these 'other' protections rather than amend the Equality Act 2010. This article considers the role and status of these other discriminations which remain outside the Equality Act 2010 in light of the government's response to Redfearn.