Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
739 search results

Summary

2011-01-11

2011/23 Rebranding of pub discriminated against gay employee (UK)

An employee suffered discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation on account of his employer’s policy of rebranding a well-known “gay” pub in order to widen its clientele. This was done in such a way as to disadvantage gay customers and so directly discriminated against the claimant, who was himself gay and uncomfortable implementing the policy.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-01-11

Case report

2011-01-10

United Kingdom

2011/22 Replacement of 51 year-old TV presenter was age discrimination (UK)

A 51-year-old female TV presenter suffered unjustified age discrimination when she was replaced by younger presenters. Whilst the employer’s wish to appeal to younger viewers was a legitimate aim, the dropping of an older presenter in order to pander to their assumed prejudices was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-01-10

Summary

2011-01-10

2011/22 Replacement of 51 year-old TV presenter was age discrimination (UK)

A 51-year-old female TV presenter suffered unjustified age discrimination when she was replaced by younger presenters. Whilst the employer’s wish to appeal to younger viewers was a legitimate aim, the dropping of an older presenter in order to pander to their assumed prejudices was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2011-01-10

Case report

2010-12-22

Finland

2011/14: Employer may not deny bonus to employees who participate in an unlawful strike (FI)

It was deemed discriminatory and a breach of the employer’s duty to respect employees’ freedom of association for an employer to refuse to pay bonuses to employees who had participated in unlawful trade union strikes. However, this did not entitle the employees to separate compensation for discrimination.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-12-22

Summary

2010-12-22

2011/14: Employer may not deny bonus to employees who participate in an unlawful strike (FI)

It was deemed discriminatory and a breach of the employer’s duty to respect employees’ freedom of association for an employer to refuse to pay bonuses to employees who had participated in unlawful trade union strikes. However, this did not entitle the employees to separate compensation for discrimination.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-12-22

Case report

2010-12-07

Netherlands

2011/5: Referral to ECJ for clarification of legality of national time-bar rules in relation to discriminatory exclusion from pension scheme (NL)

A pension scheme under which full-time employees were enrolled in the scheme automatically, compulsorily and from the first date of their employment, but part-time staff had to apply in order to participate in the scheme on a voluntary basis, may be sex-discriminatory, depending on how explicitly the part-timers were warned by their employer of the disadvantage of not participating. The ECJ’s case law on the effectiveness of national time-bar rules is not clear, for which reason the ECJ will be asked for clarification.

Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal in The Hague), 2010-12-07

Summary

2010-12-07

2011/5: Referral to ECJ for clarification of legality of national time-bar rules in relation to discriminatory exclusion from pension scheme (NL)

A pension scheme under which full-time employees were enrolled in the scheme automatically, compulsorily and from the first date of their employment, but part-time staff had to apply in order to participate in the scheme on a voluntary basis, may be sex-discriminatory, depending on how explicitly the part-timers were warned by their employer of the disadvantage of not participating. The ECJ’s case law on the effectiveness of national time-bar rules is not clear, for which reason the ECJ will be asked for clarification.

Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal in The Hague), 2010-12-07

Court watch

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, cases C-250/09 and C-268/09 (Vasil Ivanov Georgiev – v – Tehnicheski Universitet), Age discrimination

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation [...] under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and job market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18

Summary

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, cases C-250/09 and C-268/09 (Vasil Ivanov Georgiev – v – Tehnicheski Universitet), Age discrimination

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation [...] under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and job market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18

Court watch

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, case C-356/09 (Pensionsversicherungsanstalt – v – Christine Kleist), Gender discrimination

Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that national rules that permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women sooner than by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18