The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Theory of Discrimination Law
Abstract
Most laypersons think of discrimination as an act motivated by prejudice against a minority group. The law, in most cases, prohibits as discriminatory a much broader category of actions. It also encourages or demands affirmative action. This tension calls for the justification of the legal approach to the regulation of discrimination. Providing this justification, while also explaining the law in a coherent and conceptually clear manner, is the main objective of this book. My argument is that discrimination law seeks to close substantial, pervasive, and abiding advantage gaps between groups whose membership is valuable or at least value-neutral. This objective is justified because such advantage gaps are a serious impediment to human freedom. In seeking this objective, the law ensures that its fault-sensitive mandatory duties are imposed only on duty-bearers who have a relative public character, and who exercise significant control over access to limited opportunities. Discrimination law is a modest attempt to make us free in one respect: that our access to the basic goods that make us free is not unduly constrained because of our blameless membership of relatively disadvantaged groups.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Anti-discrimination law and data protection law protect certain”
From Discrimination grounds and personalised pricing: Consumer perceptions of fairness, norm alignment, legality, and trust in markets (2024) · cites this paper as Khaitan, 2015
In the citing paper
“Non-discrimination statutes typically focus on (direct and indirect) discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race, gender or sexual orientation.”
From Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as Khaitan 2015
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Giovanola, B., & Tiribelli, S. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01455-6 · Cited by 193
Why Does Workplace Gender Diversity Matter? Justice, Organizational Benefits, and Policy
Fine, C., Sojo, V. E., & Lawford‐Smith, H. (2019) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12064 · Cited by 228
Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making
Borgesius, F. Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13465 · Cited by 152
Atrey, S. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198848950.001.0001 · Cited by 74
Making Sense of Affirmative Action
Lippert‐Rasmussen, K. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190648787.001.0001 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Khaitan, T.
- Corresponding author
- Khaitan, Tarunabh
- ORCID
- Khaitan, Tarunabh
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2015-05-01
- OpenAlex
- W2267290586
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 52.53
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Keywords
- discrimination law, affirmative action, human freedom, relative disadvantage, duty bearers, access to opportunities, minority groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review