The case grew out of competition for admission to JFS, a premier Jewish school. When the school was oversubscribed, preference was given to students who were considered Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi. The suit was filed by parents of a student who was not considered Jewish because his mother was converted to Judaism by a non-Orthodox rabbi-- reflecting an internal disagreement among various branches of Judaism. A press release issued by the Court summarized the opinions in part as follows:
The New York Times reports on the decision, saying that it will affect both publicly funded and private Jewish schools in Britain, and may affect Sikh and Muslim schools as well. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon and Steve Sheinberg for leads on this case.]The judgments of the Court should not be read as criticising the admissions policy of JFS on moral grounds or suggesting that any party to the case could be considered 'racist' in the commonly understood, pejorative, sense.....
In determining whether there is direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origins for the purposes of the 1976 Act, the court must determine, as a question of fact, whether the victim’s ethnic origins are the factual criterion that determined the decision made by the discriminator.... If so, the motive for the discrimination and/or the reason why the discriminator considered the victim’s ethnic origins significant is irrelevant....
To treat an individual less favourably on the ground that he lacks certain prescribed ethnic origins constitutes direct discrimination.... [T]he factual criterion that determined the refusal to admit M to JFS is clear: the fact that he is not descended in the matrilineal line from a woman recognised by the OCR as Jewish.... The crucial question to be determined is whether this requirement is properly characterised as referring to M’s ethnic origins....
The test applied by JFS focuses upon the ethnicity of the women from whom M is descended.... There can be no doubt that the Jewish people are an ethnic group
within the meaning of the 1976 Act. While JFS and the OCR would have overlooked this fact if M's mother had herself undergone an approved course of Orthodox conversion, this could not alter the fundamental nature of the test being applied. If M’s mother herself was of the requisite ethnic origins in her matrilineal line no conversion requirement would be imposed.....
[T]reating an individual less favourably because of his ancestry ignores his unique characteristics and attributes and fails to respect his autonomy and individuality.... It might be said that the policy adopted by JFS and the OCR was based on both ethnic grounds and grounds of religion, in that the reason for the application of a test based upon ethnic origins was the conviction that such a criterion was dictated by Jewish religious law. The fact that the rule adopted was of a religious character cannot obscure or alter the fact that the content of the rule itself applies a test of ethnicity....
It is not clear that the practice-based test adopted by JFS following the Court of Appeal's judgment will result in JFS being required to admit children who are not regarded by Jewish by one or more of the established Jewish movements.... It may be arguable that an explicit exemption should be provided from the provisions of the
1976 Act in order to allow Jewish faith schools to grant priority in admissions on the basis of matrilineal descent; if so, formulating such an exemption is unquestionably a matter for Parliament.
