# FAT Legislation

* Equality Act 2010 [Link 1](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents) [Link 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010)
The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom with the primary purpose of consolidating, updating and supplementing the numerous prior Acts and Regulations, that formed the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain.

* [European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08813v2.pdf)
We summarize the potential impact that the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation will have on the routine use of machine learning algorithms. Slated to take effect as law across the EU in 2018, it will restrict automated individual decision-making (that is, algorithms that make decisions based on user-level predictors) which “significantly affect” users.The law will also create a “right to explanation,” whereby a user can ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision that was made about them. We argue that while this law will pose large chal-lenges for industry, it highlights opportunities for machine learning researchers to take the lead indesigning algorithms and evaluation frameworkswhich avoid discrimination
* [A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/624262/EPRS_STU(2019)624262_EN.pdf)
This study has been written by the following authors at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.
* [Limits and potential of the concept of indirect discrimination](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa081c13-197b-41c5-a93a-a1638e886e61)
This report was financed by and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. It does not necessarily represent the Commission’s official position.
* [Automated decision-making processes: ensuring consumer protection and the free movement of goods and services](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/O-9-2020-000008_EN.html)
Parliament Question
* [‘Disparate Impact’ and ‘Indirect Discrimination’: Assessing Responses to Systemic Discrimination in the U.S. and the E.U. ](https://ssrn.com/abstract=2596624)
The paper analyses the differences in the understanding and application of the idea of disparate impact, which originated in the U.S. and is being applied within the E.U. As a legal transplant, the idea of disparate impact operates differently in the new legal context. The operation of the idea is affected by the wider philosophy and the goals of Employment Discrimination Law in the U.S. and the E.U. Although the U.S. legal order is primarily oriented towards integrating employees into the labor market, the EU conception encourages the member states to engage in wider redistributive policies concerning salaries and welfare benefits. In the US the doctrine of disparate impact operates as a limit to the employment at will doctrine dominant in US Employment Law, whereas in the EU the doctrine has served as expanding the benefits afforded to employees as an indispensable element of the free movement of persons.
* [Gender equality law in Europe](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9b101483-3a44-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1)
This report provides a general overview of the ways in which EU gender equality law has been implemented in the domestic laws of the 28 Member States of the European Union
* [Engineering Equality: An Essay on European Anti-Discrimination Law](https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693375.001.0001/acprof-9780199693375)
Anti-discrimination law increasingly appears to occupy the centre of a renewed understanding of solidarity in the European Union. Not only is it, owing to its focus on equal treatment as regards positions and opportunities, compatible with the task of providing market access, it also seems to complement usefully the social legislation of the Member States. In the face of the widespread downsizing of the old national Welfare state, anti-discrimination law is indeed destined to be perceived as a common European achievement in the social sphere that is not merely reminiscent of a bygone age of government largesse. The book cautions, however, against premature exultation. The book uses legal analysis in order to expose the intrinsic shortcomings of anti-discrimination law, which fails to provide adequate legal guidance and invites, therefore, supplementation by pedagogical projects of social engineering. The book draws variously on the case law of the European Court of Justice, thereby exposing the bounded indeterminacy of anti-discrimination law. It points out how, because of its normative deficiency, it is systematically vulnerable to degeneration into pure casuistry. Moreover, the book also explains how the normative weakness is tacitly addressed in anti-discrimination policy’s recent move from legislation towards softer modes of modifying attitudes and behavior. The book concludes with observations concerning alternative models of solidarity in the Union.