EELA Updates

Summary

2012-03-27

2012/19: Inviting for job interview by email not discriminatory (CZ)

A job applicant was invited for an interview by email, sent less than 24 hours before the planned time of the interview. Because the applicant did not own a computer she read the invitation too late, missed the interview and did not get the job. Did the method of inviting applicants for an interview discriminate on the grounds of “property”? The Supreme Court found that this was not the case, as the employer had no intention to disadvantage applicants without a computer of their own.

Nejvyšší soud (Czech Supreme Court), 2012-03-27

Case report

2012-03-20

Europe

2013/54 BAG accepts levelling-down in age discrimination case (GE)

Provisions in a collective agreement that grant employees of different ages different terms of service are discriminatory and violate section 7 of the German Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG), the German transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC) and are therefore invalid and void. In consequence, younger employees are not entitled to equal beneficial entitlements and the provision is disapplied in respect of the initial beneficiaries.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2012-03-20

Summary

2012-03-20

2013/54 BAG accepts levelling-down in age discrimination case (GE)

Provisions in a collective agreement that grant employees of different ages different terms of service are discriminatory and violate section 7 of the German Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG), the German transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC) and are therefore invalid and void. In consequence, younger employees are not entitled to equal beneficial entitlements and the provision is disapplied in respect of the initial beneficiaries.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2012-03-20

Case report

2012-03-13

United Kingdom

2012/22: Does an employer discriminate on grounds of marital status if it treats an employee unfavourably for being married to a particular person? (UK)

Two recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) decisions have reached different conclusions on the tricky issue of whether it is discrimination on the grounds of marital status (a form of unlawful discrimination) if an employer treats a woman less favourably not because she is married, but because she is married to a particular man. In Dunn - v- The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management the EAT held that any less favourable treatment because someone is married is unlawful, even if it is because they are married to a particular person rather than because of the fact of their marriage. However, in the slightly later case of Hawkins - v - Atex Group Ltd a different division of the EAT held that discrimination on marriage grounds only occurred if the ground for the treatment is that the couple are married rather than that they are in any type of close relationship.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2012-03-13

Summary

2012-03-13

2012/22: Does an employer discriminate on grounds of marital status if it treats an employee unfavourably for being married to a particular person? (UK)

Two recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) decisions have reached different conclusions on the tricky issue of whether it is discrimination on the grounds of marital status (a form of unlawful discrimination) if an employer treats a woman less favourably not because she is married, but because she is married to a particular man. In Dunn - v- The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management the EAT held that any less favourable treatment because someone is married is unlawful, even if it is because they are married to a particular person rather than because of the fact of their marriage. However, in the slightly later case of Hawkins - v - Atex Group Ltd a different division of the EAT held that discrimination on marriage grounds only occurred if the ground for the treatment is that the couple are married rather than that they are in any type of close relationship.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2012-03-13

Case report

2012-01-13

Germany

2012/18: Dismissal for being HIV-positive justified (GE)

The termination of an HIV-positive employee cannot lead to a successful claim for damages based on disability discrimination if the safety standards adopted by the employer aim to prevent the infection of patients with that disease.

Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labour Court, 2012-01-13

Summary

2012-01-13

2012/18: Dismissal for being HIV-positive justified (GE)

The termination of an HIV-positive employee cannot lead to a successful claim for damages based on disability discrimination if the safety standards adopted by the employer aim to prevent the infection of patients with that disease.

Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labour Court, 2012-01-13

Case report

2012-01-11

France

2012/5: Not allowing male waiter to wear earrings is discriminatory (FR)

A waiter alleged that his employer had discriminated against him on grounds of gender when he dismissed him because he was wearing earrings. In January 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the employee and considered that a dismissal based on the fact that a waiter wears earrings constitutes sex discrimination.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2012-01-11

Summary

2012-01-11

2012/5: Not allowing male waiter to wear earrings is discriminatory (FR)

A waiter alleged that his employer had discriminated against him on grounds of gender when he dismissed him because he was wearing earrings. In January 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the employee and considered that a dismissal based on the fact that a waiter wears earrings constitutes sex discrimination.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2012-01-11

Case report

2011-12-07

Denmark

2012/3: Age was not a factor (DK)

A 55-year-old temp applied for a vacant permanent position in her department. When the employer decided not to consider her for the position, the temp was convinced it was because of her age. The employer explained that the decision was based on a lack of personal qualities. The Supreme Court agreed with the employer and, accordingly, did not find that the principle of equal treatment had been breached.

Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), 2011-12-07