Sex Discrimination - Cases/facts Flashcards Preview

EU Law (Adam) > Sex Discrimination - Cases/facts > Flashcards

Flashcards in Sex Discrimination - Cases/facts Deck (28):
1

Article 157

equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value

2

Directive 75/117

Equal pay for equal work directive

3

Directive 2006/54

Equal treatment in employment directive

4

Defrenne v SABENA

– Sued previous employer using article 157 (CJ held to have direct effect). CJ ruled in Defrenne’s favour, however only propspective

5

Rinner-Kuhn

Where part-time workers were not entitled to sick pay. This is indirect discrimination as in reality most part-time workers are women due to child care restraints.

6

Jenkins v Kingsgate

Full-time workers paid more than part-time workers even though they do the same job. Not indirect discrimination if objectively justified, and unrelated to sex. (informed later directive)

7

Enderby v Frenchay

Where one category of workers is paid less than another category though work assumed to be of equal value, yet one category are men and other women. Here indirect sex discrimination.

8

Bilka 3 rules for objective justification

Serves real need of undertaking, Appropriate of objective pursued (Proportionality), Necessary to achieve that end, it may be justified

9

What case shows that the necessary aims of social policy may jusitfy sexual discrimination?

Rinner-Kuhn

10

Dismissed transsexual, this was held to be ground of gender so was upheld under article 157

P v S & Cornwall

11

Grant v SW Trains Ltd

Gay couple not granted travel benefits as not gender issue but sexual preference issue

12

article 19 TFEU –

General anti-discrimination article.

13

Anglestern (D75/117)

Equal treatment extended to work of equal value in

14

Rummler v Dato-Druck

Classification system must be the same for men and women. But can include a consideration of physical effort, as long as this is not sexually discriminatory

15

What are the criteria for job classification in the Royal Copenhagen case?

established test for the classification of jobs; The nature of work, The training requirements, The working conditions

16

Coote v Granada

The directive also protects against victimisation and poor references

17

D2006/54 derogations art 14(2);Objective justification of discrimination where;

sex is determining factor, For protection of women, particularly pregnancy & maternity, For the purpose of positive discrimination

18

Commission v UK (male midwives)

Restrictions on male midwives (later lifted)

19

Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC

Refusal to renew officers contract because of new policy excluding women from carrying guns. Thought that terrorists would target female police officers. Sex of worker is determining factor in unequal treatment, but justified.

20

Sirdar v Army Board

Not allowed to serve on front line as might have to take up arms. Was not soldier, was support. Contrast with Kreil, which was not allowed as disproportionate

21

Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse

Parental leave but only for mothers. Parental leave directive 96/34

22

Ministere Public v Stoeckel

Blanket ban on women undertaking night work not allowed

23

Tele-Danmark

Rights of employee are not affected by non-disclosure of pregnancy

24

Wiebke Nielsen

Employee not obliged to declare pregnancy at recruitment stage

25

Dekker

Woman applied for job, rejected on basis of pregnancy and employer could not afford to cover cost of hiring another worker for maternity leave. Judged that this contravened Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 now article 2(2) of directive 2006/54.

26

Hertz

Pregnancy related illness after maternity leave has expired it is possible to sack on that basis. However not possible to take into account absences due to pregnancy in decision to fire.

27

- Pregnancy and maternity directive 92/85

Prohibits dismissal from beginning of pregnancy till end of maternity leave

28

Tes-Achtats

Belgian case taken to ECJ challenging legality of Gender Directive 2004/113 which allowed use of gender in calculation of premiums. From 21st December 2012 no longer allowed to use gender in the calculation of insurance premiums.