Case C-27/16. Sex discrimination

Must Article [14](1)(c) of Directive 2006/54 on the implementation of the principle of equal...

2016/19 Reference in a termination letter to ‘retirement’ can cost the employer dearly (GE)

In businesses employing fewer than ten employees, the rules on unfair dismissal do not apply. However, those on discrimination do. This fact made it possible for the 63 year-old employee in this case to claim damages, effectively for unfair dismissal. She had been dismissed following a reduction in the available work. She was selected for redundancy because she was less qualified than her colleagues. However, her termination letter mentioned that she had become “eligible for retirement”. This remark created a presumption of age discrimination, which the employer was not able to rebut.

2016/26 Dismissal of an employee with a disabled child was not discriminatory by association (DK)

It was neither direct nor indirect discrimination when a municipality dismissed a childminder with a disabled child, since the decision to dismiss was based on the interests of safeguarding children in the municipality’s childminding services, by not taking them out of their usual environment and placing them with a childminder they did not know.

Case C-668/15. Racial discrimination

Must the prohibition on direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in Article 2(2)(a) of...

Case C-27/16. Sex discrimination

Must Article [14](1)(c) of Directive 2006/54 on the implementation of the principle of equal...

2016/22 Failing to offer voluntary redundancy because it triggered a right to early retirement is directly discriminatory (UK)

Following a restructure of his employer, an over 50 year old employee was deprived of the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy, compared to his under 50 year old colleagues, because it would have triggered early retirement resulting in a higher redundancy package. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) held that the use of under 50 year old comparators was not appropriate because the comparators were not entitled to early retirement and were therefore in materially different circumstances compared to the claimant. On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’), the EAT held that the fact that the comparators were not entitled to early retirement was not a “relevant circumstance” making the comparators invalid. A prima facie case of direct age discrimination was therefore made out. The EAT remitted the case back to the original ET to determine if the employer’s direct discrimination could be justified.

2016/22 Failing to offer voluntary redundancy because it triggered a right to early retirement is directly discriminatory (UK)

Following a restructure of his employer, an over 50 year old employee was deprived of the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy, compared to his under 50 year old colleagues, because it would have triggered early retirement resulting in a higher redundancy package. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) held that the use of under 50 year old comparators was not appropriate because the comparators were not entitled to early retirement and were therefore in materially different circumstances compared to the claimant. On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’), the EAT held that the fact that the comparators were not entitled to early retirement was not a “relevant circumstance” making the comparators invalid. A prima facie case of direct age discrimination was therefore made out. The EAT remitted the case back to the original ET to determine if the employer’s direct discrimination could be justified.

ECJ 2 June 2016, case C-122/15 (C), age discrimination

National tax law (which the claimant in this case considered to be age discriminatory) does not fall within the scope of Directive 2000/78.

ECJ 2 June 2016, case C-122/15 (C), age discrimination

National tax law (which the claimant in this case considered to be age discriminatory) does not fall within the scope of Directive 2000/78.

ECJ 17 December 2015, case C-407/14. (Arjona Camacho), Discrimination – Sanction

Directive 2006/54 requires Member States to ensure that victims of sex discrimination are...