TOPIC 6: CASE LAW Flashcards
(26 cards)
Case C-229/08 Wolf [2010] ECR I-1 – upper age limit of 30 for joining fire service in Germany
ART 4 - Occupational Requirement
Case C-447/09 Prigge v Deutsche Lufthansa [2011] ECR I-00 – compulsory retirement of pilots at 60 – public security
Art 4 - Occupational Requirement
Case 144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I-9981
German law whereby employers could terminate fixed term contracts of employment of workers over 52 constituted a ‘difference of treatment on the grounds directly of age’.
Court of Justice held that:
“…it is the responsibility of the national court, hearing a dispute involving the principle of non-discrimination in respect of age, to provide, in a case within its jurisdiction, the legal protection which individuals derive from the rules of Community law and to ensure that those rules are fully effective, setting aside any provisions of national law which may conflict with that law.”
Case C-416/13 Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo
Discriminated against regarding his age in relation to recruitment of Spanish Police
Took a similar position to the German case
Court examined the age limit and objectively justified the age limit in recruitment and the duties involved in the role
There is access to other areas of the public sector
Case C-286/12 Commission v Hungary of November 2012
Change in legislation relating to retirement age from 70 to 62
People were opposed to judges that were over the age of 62 at the time
Huge protests in Hungary
Why was it such a radical change
The commission rules that the radical lowering constituted unjustified discrimination in relation to age
Joined Cases 297-298/10 Hennings [2011] ECR I-7965
Age limits around public pay systems
Donnellan v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 467
“Any discrimination with regards to age must, as put by that Directive (2000/78/EC) serve a legitimate aim or purpose, and the means taken to achieve that purpose must be appropriate and go no further than is necessary, i.e. they should be proportionate.” McKechnie, J.
Equality Authority v Ryanair [2001] ELR 107
‘young and dynamic professional’
‘the use of the word “young” clearly indicated, or might reasonably be understood as indicating, an intention to exclude applicants who were “not young”, i.e. applicants who were “middle aged” or “old“…indicated, or might reasonably have been understood as indicating, an intention to discriminate against a person who was “not young“’
Dec-E2014-057, Mr Gerry Lavalle v Border, Midland and Western Regional Authority
‘considering that you have been teaching for 27 years, why would you now be bothered with the hassle of the job of Deputy Principal?’
DEC-E-2004-003, Carroll v County Monaghan Vocational Education Committee.
CV indicated better candidate - no interview notes meant could not rebut inference of discrimination
Limerick City Council v. Reynolds ADE/03/14 Determination No. 048
Alleged age discrimination by not being appointed to post of Station Officer.
Appellant claimed that his competence & experience was far ahead of successful candidate.
No formal marking scheme.
Notes from interview panel were allowed to be destroyed.
Labour Court held that the appellant had been discriminated against on the basis of his age.
Department of Health & Children v John Gillen, ADE/03/15, Determination No. 0412
Claimant argued that he was discriminated against in two competitions for promotion on grounds of age because he was over 50, and he produced figures to prove that no candidate over 50 was successful in such competitions 1999-2003.
The age profile of the successful candidates NOT reflect age profile of the applicants.
Found that the mechanisms of promotion used in both competitions were inadequate and inappropriate; complainant was at least equal in experience and qualifications to several of the successful candidates.
Equality Officer found discrimination on the grounds of age & awarded €40,000 in compensation.
Appeal to Labour Court.
Labour Court upheld the Equality Officer’s award.
Eagle Star Insurance Co (Ireland) Ltd v A Worker [1998] ELR 306
If you were an employee and married you had access to certain insurance policies
Labour court found this constituted discrimination against the single person, or someone in a relationship
C-267/06 Maruko v Versorgungsantalt der Deutshcen Buhnen [2008] ECRI I-1757
Survivor benefits by companies to spouses
Did not apply to civil partnership (same sex marriage)
Parris v Trinity College Dublin DEC-P2013-004
Access to retirement schemes
Discrimination regarding same sex partnerships
Heard prior to marriage referendum
44 Named Male and Female Complainants v Superquinn DEC- E2003-003
Access to supplementary benefits if you were married
Had assumptions that if you wer married you had a dependent spouse
Gaelscoil Thulach na nÓg v Fitzsimons Markey (EED0049 – Labour Court)
Formal religious education should form part of the school day
Prep for communion in school hours
Teachers contract was terminated she beloved this is why
She was a parent of a child in the school - discrimination based upon family status
O’Donnell v HSE, (DEC- E2006-023, Equality Tribunal)
Indirect discrimination based on family status
Rostered 7 days in a row, 13/16 days in a row
Could not be objectively justified
Jones v Trinity College Dublin, DEC-E2010-114, Equality Tribunal)
Employee had to live within a certain location
Woman could not relocate due to family obligations
Discriminated against due to family status
Tesco Ireland v Walsh (DEE062 - Labour Court)
Employee requested to work part time after returning from maternity leave
Employer had reasonable considerations - business needs and staff shortages
She was hired as full time - no possible to reduce at this point in time
Bank of Ireland Group v Morgan (EDA096 - Labour Court)
An employer can justify not allowing job-share
Nature of the business
Inoue v NBK Designs Ltd [2003] ELR 98 (Labour Court)
Labour Court found that Ms Inoue had been subject to indirect discrimination because of her marital and her family status.
Employer removed job-sharing opportunity and turned the role into full time
Employee was unable to maintain her role due to family obligations
O’Brien v Cork University Hospital (DEC E2008-021)
Request that staff take full-time roles
This was objectively justifiable
Long v Hanley Group DEC-E2010-015 (Equality Tribunal)
claim was brought on the grounds of discrimination, harassment, discriminatory dismissal and victimisation on the grounds of the complainant’s family status – awarded €50,000.
