IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i3p447-480..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is it Discriminatory to Mistreat a Migrant Domestic Worker? The Cases of Taiwo and Onu

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Connolly

Abstract

When presented with images of the American plantations, seamstress sweatshops, Morecambe Bay’s Chinese cockle pickers or Qatar’s World Cup stadium builders, a sense of inequality will accompany any normal reaction of shock and revulsion. The exploitation of a group of migrant workers readily is characterised as racist, sexist or both. Yet, when reduced to the sole migrant worker, the legal recognition of discrimination is denied. In such cases, the UK Supreme Court posits a clear distinction between vulnerability and nationality. Not only does this seem somewhat doctrinal and lacking in principle, it produces a likely anomaly between the group and individual exploitation. It also stymies claims for the inevitable psychological harm. This paper presents a brief account of the plight of migrant workers in the UK and the legal landscape regarding trafficking. The main body presents a critical appraisal of the Supreme Court’s denial, in Taiwo v Olaigbe and Onu v Akwiwu, that the mistreatment of a sole migrant worker is not discriminatory. It demonstrates that equality law readily can recognise discrimination in such cases. This is followed by some considerations on policy and alternative remedies.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Connolly, 2024. "Is it Discriminatory to Mistreat a Migrant Domestic Worker? The Cases of Taiwo and Onu," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(3), pages 447-480.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:447-480.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:447-480.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.