ECJ 4 December 2018, C-378/17 (Minister for Justice and Equality and Commissioner of the Garda Síochána), Discrimination, General

Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána – v – Workplace Relations Commission, Irish case

ECJ 4 December 2018, C-378/17 (Minister for Justice and Equality and Commissioner of the Garda Síochána), Discrimination, General

Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána – v – Workplace Relations Commission, Irish case

ECJ 19 October 2017, case C-531/15 (Otero Ramos), General discrimination, Gender discrimination

The provisions on the burden of proof regarding the equal treatment of men and women in employment matters in Directive 2006/54 also apply to claims by breastfeeding workers based on Directive 92/85 (safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).

ECJ 19 October 2017, case C-531/15 (Otero Ramos), General discrimination, Gender discrimination

The provisions on the burden of proof regarding the equal treatment of men and women in employment matters in Directive 2006/54 also apply to claims by breastfeeding workers based on Directive 92/85 (safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).

2017/27 Supreme Court clarifies indirect discrimination test (UK)

The Supreme Court has given a clear explanation of how the test for indirect discrimination works, holding that it is not necessary to know why a particular group is disadvantaged by an employer’s policy in order to show indirect discrimination. This decision is not particularly helpful for employers as it makes it easier for individuals to make an indirect discrimination claim. However, the Supreme Court emphasised that it is always open to an employer to show that indirect discrimination is justified.

2017/27 Supreme Court clarifies indirect discrimination test (UK)

The Supreme Court has given a clear explanation of how the test for indirect discrimination works, holding that it is not necessary to know why a particular group is disadvantaged by an employer’s policy in order to show indirect discrimination. This decision is not particularly helpful for employers as it makes it easier for individuals to make an indirect discrimination claim. However, the Supreme Court emphasised that it is always open to an employer to show that indirect discrimination is justified.

2017/3 Meeting the qualification requirements for a job is not a prerequisite for an applicant to be entitled to damages on grounds of discrimination (GE)

A claim for compensation for discrimination was not excluded simply because the applicant did not have the ‘objective qualifications’ necessary for the job. According to the German General Equal Treatment Act (the ‘Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz’, or ‘AGG’), what is necessary for a compensation claim is a ‘comparable situation’. According to the latest decision of the German Federal Labour Court (the ‘Bundesarbeitsgericht’, or ‘BAG’) this can occur even if the applicant does not fulfill the general requirements to do the job.

2017/3 Meeting the qualification requirements for a job is not a prerequisite for an applicant to be entitled to damages on grounds of discrimination (GE)

A claim for compensation for discrimination was not excluded simply because the applicant did not have the ‘objective qualifications’ necessary for the job. According to the German General Equal Treatment Act (the ‘Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz’, or ‘AGG’), what is necessary for a compensation claim is a ‘comparable situation’. According to the latest decision of the German Federal Labour Court (the ‘Bundesarbeitsgericht’, or ‘BAG’) this can occur even if the applicant does not fulfill the general requirements to do the job.

2016/50 Employment status in discrimination claims: absence of obligations between assignments can be relevant (UK)

The Court of Appeal has given guidance on how to determine employment status in discrimination cases where the claimant is engaged on a case-by-case basis. The judgment confirms that the lack of mutual obligations between the putative employer and employee between assignments can be a relevant factor. If an individual is engaged on an assignment-by-assignment basis, with the freedom to turn down work when it is offered, this may imply a lack of subordination during the periods of work. The absence of an overarching ‘umbrella’ contract between assignments may therefore be relevant when determining whether an individual is protected by discrimination law.

2016/50 Employment status in discrimination claims: absence of obligations between assignments can be relevant (UK)

The Court of Appeal has given guidance on how to determine employment status in discrimination cases where the claimant is engaged on a case-by-case basis. The judgment confirms that the lack of mutual obligations between the putative employer and employee between assignments can be a relevant factor. If an individual is engaged on an assignment-by-assignment basis, with the freedom to turn down work when it is offered, this may imply a lack of subordination during the periods of work. The absence of an overarching ‘umbrella’ contract between assignments may therefore be relevant when determining whether an individual is protected by discrimination law.