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

Summary

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

Court watch

2010-11-11

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-232/09 (Dita Danosa – v – LKB Lizings SIA), Gender discrimination

Even if Ms Danosa is not a “pregnant worker” within the meaning of Directive 92/85, if her removal as a Board member was on account of her pregnancy (bearing in mind the reversal of the burden of proof), that removal would be contrary to Directive 76/207. In as much as Latvian law allows such a removal, it is not in line with EU law (§ 74).

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

Summary

2010-11-11

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-232/09 (Dita Danosa – v – LKB Lizings SIA), Gender discrimination

Even if Ms Danosa is not a “pregnant worker” within the meaning of Directive 92/85, if her removal as a Board member was on account of her pregnancy (bearing in mind the reversal of the burden of proof), that removal would be contrary to Directive 76/207. In as much as Latvian law allows such a removal, it is not in line with EU law (§ 74).

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

Case report

2010-09-21

United Kingdom

2011/6: Loss caused by ex-employer’s victimisation not too remote (UK)

A law firm that victimised a former employee by giving her a bad reference, because she had brought a sex discrimination claim against it, was liable to pay her compensation for loss of earnings when a prospective new employer withdrew a job offer because of the reference.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2010-09-21

Summary

2010-09-21

2011/6: Loss caused by ex-employer’s victimisation not too remote (UK)

A law firm that victimised a former employee by giving her a bad reference, because she had brought a sex discrimination claim against it, was liable to pay her compensation for loss of earnings when a prospective new employer withdrew a job offer because of the reference.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2010-09-21

Case report

2010-07-29

Germany

2011/24 How much compensation for lost income following discrimination? (GE)

How much can an employee, whose fixed-term contract was not extended for a reason that was age-discriminatory, claim?

Oberlandesgericht Kšln (Court of Appeal) , 2010-07-29

Summary

2010-07-29

2011/24 How much compensation for lost income following discrimination? (GE)

How much can an employee, whose fixed-term contract was not extended for a reason that was age-discriminatory, claim?

Oberlandesgericht Kšln (Court of Appeal) , 2010-07-29

Case report

2010-07-28

United Kingdom

2010/76: Mandatory retirement of law firm partner at age 65 justified (UK)

It was lawful for a law firm to operate a policy of mandatory retirement of partners at the age of 65 as this was a proportionate means of meeting various legitimate aims.

Court of Appeal, 2010-07-28

Summary

2010-07-28

2010/76: Mandatory retirement of law firm partner at age 65 justified (UK)

It was lawful for a law firm to operate a policy of mandatory retirement of partners at the age of 65 as this was a proportionate means of meeting various legitimate aims.

Court of Appeal, 2010-07-28

Case report

2010-07-22

Germany

2011/25 Statistics alone insufficient to establish presumption of “glass ceiling” (GE)

An employee who is not promoted to a higher position and who alleges that this is because there is a “glass ceiling”, must establish facts from which it may be presumed that there has been gender discrimination. Providing statistics to the effect that women are underrepresented in senior positions is insufficient for this purpose.

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2010-07-22