Welcome to the European Employment Law Cases (EELC), an online database of judgments of national courts, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of employment law. In addition to case law, we also bring you the occasional articles and news items. For more information, please click here.
2010/58: Discrimination on grounds of perceived disability not outlawed (UK)
Under current UK law, a claim for disability discrimination can only be brought by a person who has a disability or is associated with a disabled person, not a person who is wrongly perceived as having a disability. This will change when the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010 come into force.
2010/78: Rules prohibiting direct sex discrimination may be applied to a claim based on indirect sex discrimination (failure to provide part-time work) (IR)
An employee alleged that her employer had indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and family status when it failed to provide her with part-time work in 2005. At the hearing, the Equality Officer decided to address the issue of direct discrimination, even though the employee had not made any allegations in this regard. The Equality Officer concluded that the employee had established a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the grounds of gender only and awarded her € 45,000 in compensation.
2010/75: Not all collective terms cross over to Austrian transferee (AU)
Normally in Austria, following a transfer of undertaking, the transferee’s CLA applies to the transferred employees. However, in the case of the railway privatisation, the transferors’ CLA continues to apply with one exception. This case deals with that exception.
2010/83: Employee barred from using, in discrimination case, information provided in "without prejudice" discussions (UK)
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers can legitimately have “without prejudice” discussions with employees who have alleged unlawful discrimination, with a view to settling the dispute. Such discussions cannot later be used as evidence in court.
2010/84: Does a rejected job applicant have the right to know who got the job and why? (GE)
A German court has referred to the ECJ the following question for a preliminary ruling: must national courts interpret EU law as meaning that an applicant who demonstrates that he or she complies with the requirements of a job advertisement but was not invited for a job interview, has the right to know whether someone else was engaged and, if so, on which criteria that engagement was based? If the answer is yes, does the fact that the employer does not give such information lead to a presumption of discrimination?
2011/4: One-month deadline for exercising Widerspruchsrecht does not start to run if information to staff on impending transfer is misleading (GE)
Failure by an employer to inform the relevant employees correctly about an impending transfer of undertaking can be very costly.
2010/65: Scottish court reverses ‘same establishment’ doctrine in respect of gender pay equality (UK)
For sex discrimination purposes, an employee can compare him or herself to all other employees within the same employer regardless whether they are in the same department.
2010/80: Supreme Court disapplies statutory mandatory retirement (at age 60) provisions (FR)
In May 2010, the French Supreme Court ruled in favour of strict judicial control of compulsory retirement provisions, holding that national provisions of law are to be disapplied if differential treatment on grounds of age is not demonstrably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary.
2010/69: When is a strike so ‘purely political’ that a court can prohibit it? (NL)
A collective action, such as a strike, that aims to influence government plans, but targets others (e.g. employers) is not only subject to national law, but also to European law as applied by the national courts, which much ascertain whether the collective action is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
2010/59: Degree requirement was not indirect age discrimination (UK)
An employer required an employee to possess a law degree in order to progress to the highest threshold of a career structure. The Court of Appeal ruled that this did not put those who were too close to retirement to obtain a degree at a ‘particular disadvantage’ for the purposes of an indirect age discrimination claim under UK legislation.