2018/13 Discrimination based on perceived disability found unlawful (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has confirmed that, even if an employee is not actually disabled for the purpose of the relevant statutory test, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against that employee because of a perceived disability.

2018/12 Disabilities and reasonable accommodation – Court of Appeal clarifies how far employers must go (IR)

The Irish Court of Appeal recently clarified the obligations of employers towards employees with a disability. The judgment suggests that an employer is not required to alter the duties of a position held by an employee with a disability in order to accommodate that employee’s return to work if the duties, which the employee is no longer capable of performing, are considered essential to the employee’s position.

2018/12 Disabilities and reasonable accommodation – Court of Appeal clarifies how far employers must go (IR)

The Irish Court of Appeal recently clarified the obligations of employers towards employees with a disability. The judgment suggests that an employer is not required to alter the duties of a position held by an employee with a disability in order to accommodate that employee’s return to work if the duties, which the employee is no longer capable of performing, are considered essential to the employee’s position.

2018/14 Dismissal for reorganisation during pregnancy gives right to protection indemnity if not based on objective factors (BE)

The Labour Court of Brussels ordered an employer to pay a protection indemnity to an employee following termination on the basis of reorganisation during her pregnancy because (i) the employee benefited from a specific protection against dismissal and (ii) the employer failed to prove that the dismissal of the employee was based on reasons unrelated to the pregnancy.

2018/14 Dismissal for reorganisation during pregnancy gives right to protection indemnity if not based on objective factors (BE)

The Labour Court of Brussels ordered an employer to pay a protection indemnity to an employee following termination on the basis of reorganisation during her pregnancy because (i) the employee benefited from a specific protection against dismissal and (ii) the employer failed to prove that the dismissal of the employee was based on reasons unrelated to the pregnancy.

2018/2 Court of Appeal restores burden of proof test in discrimination cases (UK)

The Court of Appeal has overruled the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Efobi – v – Royal Mail [2017] IRLR 956 (reported in EELC 2017/41), restoring the previous position that a claimant in a discrimination case has the initial burden of proof – which ‘shifts’ to the respondent to provide an explanation of why its conduct was non-discriminatory if a prima facie case is proven.The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing’s ruling in Efobi, that section136 of the Equality Act 2010 had made a substantial change to the law when it was introduced, on the basis that it could not be fair that a respondent should have to discharge the burden of proof without the claimant first showing that there is a case to be answered. Lord Singh ruled that it could not have been Parliament’s intention to remove this initial burden of proof when it enacted the Equality Act.

ECtHR 5 December 2017, application no. 57101/10, Nationality discrimination

Denial of military pension is deemed to be discriminatory based on nationality.

Ribać – v – Slovenia, Slovenian case

ECtHR 5 December 2017, application no. 57101/10, Nationality discrimination

Denial of military pension is deemed to be discriminatory based on nationality.

Ribać – v – Slovenia, Slovenian case

2018/2 Court of Appeal restores burden of proof test in discrimination cases (UK)

The Court of Appeal has overruled the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Efobi – v – Royal Mail [2017] IRLR 956 (reported in EELC 2017/41), restoring the previous position that a claimant in a discrimination case has the initial burden of proof – which ‘shifts’ to the respondent to provide an explanation of why its conduct was non-discriminatory if a prima facie case is proven.The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing’s ruling in Efobi, that section136 of the Equality Act 2010 had made a substantial change to the law when it was introduced, on the basis that it could not be fair that a respondent should have to discharge the burden of proof without the claimant first showing that there is a case to be answered. Lord Singh ruled that it could not have been Parliament’s intention to remove this initial burden of proof when it enacted the Equality Act.

EJC 7 September 2017, case C-174/16 (H), Maternity and parental leave, Gender discrimination

Clause 5(1) and (2) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave precludes rules of national law which make promotion conditional on having successfully completed a probation, if probation has not taken place because of parental leave.