<strong>ECJ 1 October 2015, case C-432/14&nbsp;(O - v - Bio Philippe Auguste SARL)&nbsp;(&ldquo;O&rdquo;), Age discrimination</strong>

On 21 December 2010, Mr O, while he was a student, was recruited by Bio Philippe Auguste SARL...

ECJ 9 September 2015, case C-20/13 (Daniel Unland - v - Land Berlin), Age discrimination

Before 1 August 2011, federal civil servants were paid according to age groups. Under the law as...

<strong>ECJ 9 September 2015, case C-20/13&nbsp;(Daniel Unland - v - Land Berlin), Age discrimination</strong>

Before 1 August 2011, federal civil servants were paid according to age groups. Under the law as...

ECJ 16 July 2015, case C-83/14 (CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD - v - Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia), Nationality discrimination

Ms Nikolova runs a grocer’s shop in a district of the town of Dupnitsa, a district...

<strong>ECJ 16 July 2015, case C-83/14&nbsp;(CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD - v - Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia), Nationality discrimination</strong>

Ms Nikolova runs a grocer’s shop in a district of the town of Dupnitsa, a district...

2015/44 An age-discriminatory staff policy? (DK)

According to the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act, which is based on the Employment Equality Framework Directive, if an apparently neutral staff policy works to the disadvantage of employees of a certain age compared with other employees, this constitutes indirect discrimination, unless the policy is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

In this case, the Danish Eastern High Court had to consider whether a policy providing for six months' notice to all employees in case of redundancies – regardless of their length of service – was in breach of the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Danish Salaried Employees Act lays down a minimum notice period for all salaried employees. The notice period is extended when an employee has been employed for a certain number of years. The longer an employee stays employed, the longer the notice period. Similar provisions are provided in most Danish collective agreements.

<p><strong>2015/44 An age-discriminatory staff policy? (DK)</strong></p>

According to the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act, which is based on the Employment Equality Framework Directive, if an apparently neutral staff policy works to the disadvantage of employees of a certain age compared with other employees, this constitutes indirect discrimination, unless the policy is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

In this case, the Danish Eastern High Court had to consider whether a policy providing for six months' notice to all employees in case of redundancies – regardless of their length of service – was in breach of the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Danish Salaried Employees Act lays down a minimum notice period for all salaried employees. The notice period is extended when an employee has been employed for a certain number of years. The longer an employee stays employed, the longer the notice period. Similar provisions are provided in most Danish collective agreements.

2015/27 Constitional court validates unified status for white collar and blue collar workers (BE)

Under Belgian law, an employer wishing to dismiss an employee has the choice of either observing a notice period (the length of which depends on years of service) or paying the employee an ‘indemnity in lieu’, that is to say a sum of money equal to the salary (including fringe benefits) that the employee would have earned during the notice period. In December 2013, a law was passed that altered the rules on notice periods. Some of the provisions of the 2013 law especially affect employees who are entitled to a notice period (or an indemnity in lieu) of 30 weeks or more. These ‘30+ week employees’ must now be offered employability assistance by an external outplacement agency. Employees who are dismissed with notice receive these outplacement services during their notice period. The cost of the outplacement agency is borne by the employer. Employees who are not given notice but are paid an indemnity in lieu, on the other hand, bear the cost of the outplacement services themselves, in that their indemnity is reduced by a sum equal to four weeks of salary. A union representing executive employees (‘cadres / kaderpersoneel’) and several individual workers challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the 2013 law without success.

<strong>2015/27 Constitional court validates unified status for white collar and blue collar workers (BE)</strong>

Under Belgian law, an employer wishing to dismiss an employee has the choice of either observing a notice period (the length of which depends on years of service) or paying the employee an ‘indemnity in lieu’, that is to say a sum of money equal to the salary (including fringe benefits) that the employee would have earned during the notice period. In December 2013, a law was passed that altered the rules on notice periods. Some of the provisions of the 2013 law especially affect employees who are entitled to a notice period (or an indemnity in lieu) of 30 weeks or more. These ‘30+ week employees’ must now be offered employability assistance by an external outplacement agency. Employees who are dismissed with notice receive these outplacement services during their notice period. The cost of the outplacement agency is borne by the employer. Employees who are not given notice but are paid an indemnity in lieu, on the other hand, bear the cost of the outplacement services themselves, in that their indemnity is reduced by a sum equal to four weeks of salary. A union representing executive employees (‘cadres / kaderpersoneel’) and several individual workers challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the 2013 law without success.

2015/28 Supreme Court follows up on ECJ’s 2013 judgment in Ring and Werge (DK)

On 23 June 2015, the Danish Supreme Court followed up on the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the EU (the ‘ECJ’) in joined cases C-335/11 (Ring) and C-337/11 (Werge). The issue was whether section 5(2) of the Danish Salaried Employees Act (‘DSE’) was compatible with Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78 (the ‘Directive’). Section 5(2) DSE allows an employer, in certain cases, to dismiss an employee, who has been absent from work for medical reasons for 120 days within a 12 month period, with a reduced period of notice. Can an employer apply this provision even where the employee’s absence was on account of disability? The ECJ replied affirmatively, but only if section 5(2) is objectively justified, and even then only if the employee’s absence is not attributable to failure by the employer to make reasonable adjustments. The Danish Supreme Court has now, in the national proceedings initiated by Ms Werge, found section 5(2) DSE to be objectively justified. Given that Ms Werge’s employer was unaware that her absence was caused by a disability (given that she proved that it was a disability but the employer was unaware of the relevant facts), it had no reason to make adjustments