A company’s ban on the provision of travel perks to same sex partners of employees did not constitute breach of European sex discrimination law. An employer’s policy was not necessarily to be incorporated into the contract of employment. The court said that since the rule applied equally to male and female employees it was not discriminatory on grounds of ‘sex’ narrowly understood. The Court then considered whether ‘persons who have a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex are in the same situation as those who are married or have a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex’. The European Parliament, although deploring all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, had not yet introduced measures to support that view; and that the laws of the member states only gave limited protection to such a relationship. So far as the European Commission on Human Rights was concerned, national provisions which, for the purpose of protecting the family, accord more favourable treatment to married persons and persons of the opposite sex living together as man and wife than to persons of the same sex in a stable relationship are not contrary to article 14 of the Convention which prohibits, inter alia, discrimination on the ground of sex. Stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages and stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex. Consequently, an employer is not required by Community law to treat the situation of a person who has a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex as equivalent to that of a person who is married to or has a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex.
Times 23-Feb-1998, Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] IRLR 188, C-249/96, [1998] ICR 449, [1998] 3 BHRC 578, [1998] EUECJ C-249/96
Bailii
Council Directive 75/117/EEC, EC Treaty 119
Citing:
Cited – S v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The applicant was not entitled in domestic law to succeed to a tenancy on the death of her partner. The aim of the legislation is question was to protect the family, a goal similar to the protection of the right to respect for family life guaranteed . .
Cited by:
Cited – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Cited – Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Pearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, European
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.161917
