Grounded and Purposive: Sir Patrick Elias and Discrimination Law

Abstract This article argues that in his significant contribution to discrimination law, Patrick Elias’s judgments are grounded and purposive. They are purposive because they recognise that employment legislation must generally be interpreted as protective of employees because of the power imbalance between the parties. They are also grounded. They are ‘grounded in fact’ because they are practical and realistic about working life for employers and workers. They are ‘grounded in law’ because they recognise the limits of the law and that the law—even discrimination law—cannot address all injustice, real or perceived. They are also ‘grounded in the system’ because they recognise that in the current liberal (social?) market economy, employers have legitimate interests, as do employees. By grounding his judgments in the system, Elias might be seen as conservative. However, this conservatism might be considered radical in the face of much current academic discourse. Using examples from his judgments, we illustrate both the grounded and purposive approach adopted by Elias, its theoretical underpinnings, how it has been applied to labour law more widely, and how it might be used to address some thorny issues in discrimination law in the future.