coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after employment has been terminated by employers against who claim for sex discrimination had been successful. Victimisation included failure to provide proper reference to former employee. The provision of references for employees by an employer is covered by the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex laid down by Council Directive (76/207/EEC). In that connection, it is irrelevant whether the references were in fact refused during the period of employment or after its termination or whether the employer decided on the refusal before or after the termination of the period of employment. (2) Directive (76/207/EEC) does not, however, require member states to introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable employees to bring legal proceedings against former employers who have refused to provide references for them, where that refusal constitutes retaliation for legal proceedings brought by the employee against the employer with a view to enforcing compliance with the requirement of equal treatment for men and women.
‘The principle of effective judicial control laid down in article 6 of the Directive would be deprived of an essential part of its effectiveness if the protection which it provides did not cover measures which, as in the main proceedings in this case, an employer might take as a reaction to legal proceedings brought by an employee with the aim of enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment. Fear of such measures, where no legal remedy is available against them, might deter workers who considered themselves the victims of discrimination from pursuing their claims by judicial process, and would consequently be liable seriously to jeopardise implementation of the aim pursued by the Directive.’
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P
Times 01-Oct-1998, Gazette 10-Dec-1998, C-185/97, [1998] IRLR 656, [1999] ICR 100, [1998] ECR I-5199, [1998] EUECJ C-185/97
Bailii
Council Directive 76/207/EEC Equal Treatment of workers
Citing:
Appeal from – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd EAT 19-May-1999
The refusal of an employer to provide a reference to an employee who had left and claimed sex discrimination against the company could of itself and also found a claim for sex discrimination as victimisation. European regulations required the court . .
Cited by:
Cited – Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc CA 3-May-2001
A sex discrimination claim involving a claim by an employee for damages for sexual harassment, had to be made during the period of employment. An employer’s failure to deal properly with an allegation of sexual harassment could itself be a detriment . .
Cited – Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
Cited – Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personnel CA 19-Feb-2001
Failure to give proper reference for former employee. . .
Cited – Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personell CA 4-Dec-2001
Failure to give proper reference. ECJ judgment giving right to make complaint only if cause was result of complaint over health and safety matters.
Held: The appeal failed. The section did not protect former workers: ‘section 44 does not, on . .
Cited – St Helens Borough Council v Derbyshire and others HL 25-Apr-2007
The claimants were pursuing an action for equal pay. Several others settled their own actions, and the respondents then wrote direct to the claimants expressing their concern that the action ws being continued and its possible effects. The claimants . .
Cited – Oyarce v Cheshire County Council CA 2-May-2008
The court was asked as to whether the provisions for the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases was limited to findings of discrimination or extended also to issues of victimisation, and as to whether section 5A had properly . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 7-Feb-2014
The claimant challenged the Regulations and Orders charging for the laying of complaints at Employment Tribunals, saying they were mistaken and discriminatory.
Held: The challenge failed. The new Order was not in breach of European Union . .
At ECJ – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd EAT 19-May-1999
The refusal of an employer to provide a reference to an employee who had left and claimed sex discrimination against the company could of itself and also found a claim for sex discrimination as victimisation. European regulations required the court . .
Cited – Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and Another CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether a claim as to acts of victimisation could be sustained in connection with actions alleged after termination of employment.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act operated to proscribe such actions. However, this is one . .
Cited – Deer v University of Oxford CA 6-Feb-2015
The claimant had previously succeeded in a claim of sex discrimination against the University, her former employer. She now appealed against rejection of her claims alleging later victimisation.
Held: Two appeals succeed, and those matters . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, European
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.162124