Pursuant to s 5(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (“the Act“), an alleged discriminator will have discriminated against a person with a disability if they treat the disabled person less favourably, because of their disability, than they treat or would have treated someone without the disability, ‘in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different'.

A matter crucial to the assessment of whether there has been illegal discrimination for the purposes of the Act, therefore, is what constitutes the circumstances of the aggrieved person's case. In order for there to be a contravention of the Act not only must the alleged discriminator have treated the disabled person less favourably than they would have treated someone without a disability, but the alleged discriminator must have treated the disabled person less favourably than they would have treated someone without a disability who was in the same circumstances as the person with the disability.

Traditionally, statutory provisions prohibiting direct discrimination have employed a test of less favourable treatment. This test is controversial since it requires the use of a comparator, which is widely regarded as giving rise to a range of serious problems. It is commonly assumed, both by academics and legislators, that reliance on a comparator, and the problems to which such reliance gives rise, can be avoided by employing a test of unfavourable treatment instead of a test of less favourable treatment. In this article, we subject this assumption to critical scrutiny. We acknowledge that, on what is probably the most common understanding of the test of unfavourable treatment, employing that test does avoid the need to rely on a comparator. However, we argue that this understanding renders the test of unfavourable treatment radically over-inclusive. We then consider alternative approaches to understanding the test of unfavourable treatment, and investigate whether these approaches avoid the need to rely on a comparator whilst also avoiding the over-inclusiveness problem. We argue that this depends, ultimately, on what the value is that underlies prohibitions on discrimination.

Globally, there is seasonal variation in tuberculosis (TB) incidence, yet the biological and behavioural or social factors driving TB seasonality differ across countries. Understanding season-specific risk factors that may be specific to the UK could help shape future decision-making for TB control. We conducted a time-series analysis using data from 152,424 UK TB notifications between 2000 and 2018. Notifications were aggregated by year, month, and socio-demographic covariates, and negative binomial regression models fitted to the aggregate data. For each covariate, we calculated the size of the seasonal effect as the incidence risk ratio (IRR) for the peak versus the trough months within the year and the timing of the peak, whilst accounting for the overall trend. There was strong evidence for seasonality (p < 0.0001) with an IRR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.23–1.30). The peak was estimated to occur at the beginning of May. Significant differences in seasonal amplitude were identified across age groups, ethnicity, site of disease, latitude and, for those born abroad, time since entry to the UK. The smaller amplitude in older adults, and greater amplitude among South Asians and people who recently entered the UK may indicate the role of latent TB reactivation and vitamin D deficiency in driving seasonality.

Parents’ discrimination against their children is lawful. But the family, as an institution in which social goods are allocated, is as significant as the sites in which anti-discrimination law operates. At least prima facie, therefore, parents should be governed by legal prohibitions on discrimination. While state incursion into family life poses a threat to children’s autonomy, so does parental discrimination against children. Anti-discrimination law therefore needs new institutions to promote the values of non-discrimination in a part of society that currently sits outside anti-discrimination law’s reach. We identify existing regimes that may provide a starting point for this work.

We examine the predictability of stock returns using implied volatility spreads (VS) from individual (nonindex) options. VS can occur under simple no-arbitrage conditions for American options when volatility is time-varying, suggesting that the VS-return predictability could be an artifact of firms’ sensitivities to aggregate volatility. Examining this empirically, we find that the predictability changes systematically with aggregate volatility and is positively related to the firms’ sensitivities to volatility risk. The alpha generated by VS hedge portfolios can be explained by aggregate volatility risk factors. Our results cannot be explained by firm-specific informed trading, transaction costs, or liquidity.