## Facts

- E sought to enroll his 13-year-old son, M, at JFS, a state-funded Jewish comprehensive school in London.
- JFS was heavily oversubscribed and applied priority criteria for applicants who were “Jewish” as defined by the Office of the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of the Commonwealth (OCR).
- The OCR definition was matrilineal: a child was treated as Jewish if the mother was Jewish by birth, or if the mother had converted through a process accepted by the OCR.
- M’s mother was born into a Roman Catholic Italian family.
- M’s mother later converted to Judaism through the Masorti movement; many Jewish communities accepted that conversion, but the OCR did not.
- Although M was brought up in a Masorti synagogue and identified as Jewish in practice, he was not regarded as Jewish under the OCR definition used by JFS.
- JFS informed E that M was unlikely to be admitted because the school was oversubscribed and M did not meet the OCR-based Jewish-status criterion.
- An admissions appeal panel rejected M’s appeal.
- E brought judicial review proceedings, arguing that JFS’s admissions arrangements amounted to unlawful racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976), on the basis that Jews are protected as an ethnic group and the test turned on descent.
- The High Court rejected the claim; the Court of Appeal allowed it and held the policy unlawful; JFS appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Did JFS’s admissions criterion, which preferred children recognized as Jewish by the OCR (by matrilineal descent or OCR-accepted conversion), constitute direct discrimination “on racial grounds” (including ethnic origins) under RRA 1976 § 1(1)(a)?
2. If not direct discrimination, did the criterion amount to indirect racial discrimination under RRA 1976 § 1(1)(b), and if so could it be justified?
3. Did the fact that the criterion was based on a religious definition of Jewish status remove it from the RRA 1976 prohibition on discrimination in school admissions (including § 17)?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed JFS’s appeal by a 5–4 vote, affirming that the admissions arrangements were unlawful under the RRA 1976.
- A five-justice majority (Lords Phillips, Mance, Clarke, Kerr, and Lady Hale) held the policy was direct racial discrimination: eligibility depended on the mother’s status (or an OCR-approved conversion), which functioned as a descent-based test linked to ethnic origins.
- Lords Hope and Walker did not classify the treatment as direct discrimination but concluded it was indirect racial discrimination and could not be justified.
- Lords Rodger and Brown dissented, treating the policy as a religious status rule rather than a racial test, and would have allowed the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- “Racial grounds” in the RRA 1976 include “ethnic origins,” and Jews can qualify as a protected ethnic group (drawing on the approach in *Mandla v Dowell-Lee*).
- Direct discrimination focuses on the reason for the less favorable treatment; a benign, faith-based, or theological reason does not prevent the treatment from being “on racial grounds.”
- A rule that allocates a benefit by reference to matrilineal descent (or a conversion rule that operates as a gate to that descent-based status) can amount to direct discrimination on ethnic origins.
- Direct and indirect discrimination are distinct categories: where the rule assigns treatment by reference to a protected characteristic, the question is direct discrimination rather than a neutral rule with unequal effects.
- Indirect discrimination (where applicable) involves a provision, criterion, or practice that places a racial group at a particular disadvantage and is unlawful unless shown to be a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.
- RRA 1976 § 17 prohibits racial discrimination in the arrangements for selecting pupils for admission to schools; the case applied that prohibition to an oversubscription priority rule.

## Conclusion

In *R(E) v Governing Body of JFS*, the UK Supreme Court held that JFS’s use of the Chief Rabbi’s matrilineal definition of who counted as Jewish for admissions priority resulted in unlawful race discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976: the admissions advantage turned on the mother’s descent-based status (or an OCR-approved conversion) and therefore operated on ethnic origins, even though the school applied the rule for religious reasons.


R(E) v. Governing Body of JFS, [2009] UKSC 15 (2009)