<strong>2015/22 Job applicant may lie when asked about spouse&rsquo;s gender and political activity (FI)</strong>

The employer had no right to ask the job applicant about her spouse’s political activity, nor to require the applicant to tell the truth about her spouse’s gender. Consequently, the employer discriminated against the employee when it terminated the employment for serious breach of trust having discovered that the employee had lied about her spouse’s political activity and had not corrected the assumption that the spouse was of the same gender.

2015/42 The dismissal of an employee for expressing negative views about a colleague’s homosexuality was both directly and indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of religion or belief (UK)

An Employment Tribunal has found that the employer of a Christian nursery worker both directly and indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of her religion or belief when they dismissed her for expressing negative views about homosexuality to a lesbian colleague. Her claim for harassment was not upheld as the Employment Tribunal found that the employer’s conduct was not unwanted because the employee welcomed the disciplinary proceedings as an opportunity to express her religious beliefs in more detail.

<p><strong>2015/42 The dismissal of an employee for expressing negative views about a colleague&rsquo;s homosexuality was both directly and indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of religion or belief (UK)</strong></p>

An Employment Tribunal has found that the employer of a Christian nursery worker both directly and indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of her religion or belief when they dismissed her for expressing negative views about homosexuality to a lesbian colleague. Her claim for harassment was not upheld as the Employment Tribunal found that the employer’s conduct was not unwanted because the employee welcomed the disciplinary proceedings as an opportunity to express her religious beliefs in more detail.

2015/21 Mental processes of those influencing the sole decision-maker not relevant to discrimination claim (UK)

In a recent age discrimination case, the Court of Appeal decided there was no need for an Employment Tribunal to consider the mental processes of other people influencing the sole decision-maker, regardless of the fact that his decision was informed by their opinions

<strong>2015/21 Mental processes of those influencing the sole decision-maker not relevant to discrimination claim (UK)</strong>

In a recent age discrimination case, the Court of Appeal decided there was no need for an Employment Tribunal to consider the mental processes of other people influencing the sole decision-maker, regardless of the fact that his decision was informed by their opinions

ECJ 14 April 2015, case C-527/13 (Lourdes Cachaldora Fernández – v - Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Gender discrimination

Ms Cachaldora Fernández made contributions to Spain’s social security system during...

<strong>ECJ 14 April 2015, case C-527/13&nbsp;(Lourdes Cachaldora Fern&aacute;ndez &ndash; v - Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Gender discrimination</strong>

Ms Cachaldora Fernández made contributions to Spain’s social security system during...

2015/52 Protection of pregnant employees – In-vitro fertilisation (GE)

An employee can benefit from special protection against dismissal from the moment an embryo is transferred into her body in-vitro

<p><strong>2015/52 Protection of pregnant employees &ndash; In-vitro fertilisation (GE)</strong></p>

An employee can benefit from special protection against dismissal from the moment an embryo is transferred into her body in-vitro

2015/25 Does a ban on visible outward signs of religious belief at work constitute direct discrimination? (BE)

The Belgian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) has asked the European Court of Justice whether Directive 2000/78 should be interpreted in such a way that a prohibition on wearing a headscarf at work does (not) constitute direct discrimination where the employer’s workplace rules prohibit all employees from wearing outward signs of political, philosophical and religious belief in the workplace.