Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from any discriminatory reason. It was not a breach of the Directive.
Lord Nicholls said: ‘The burden placed on the government in this type of case is not as heavy as previously thought. Governments must be able to govern. They adopt general policies, and implement measures to carry out their policies. Governments must be able to take into account a wide range of social, economic and political factors. The Court of Justice has recognised these practical considerations. If their aim is legitimate, governments have a discretion when choosing the method to achieve their aim. National courts, acting with hindsight, are not to impose an impracticable burden on governments which are proceeding in good faith. Generalised assumptions, lacking any factual foundation, are not good enough. But governments are to be afforded a broad measure of discretion. The onus is on the Member State to show (1) that the allegedly discriminatory rule reflects a legitimate aim of its social policy, (2) that this aim is unrelated to any discrimination based on sex, and (3) that the Member State could reasonably consider that the means chosen were suitable for attaining that aim.’
Judges:
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Goff of Chievley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn
Citations:
Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] UKHL 12, [2000] 1 All ER 857, [2000] 1 WLR 435, [2000] ICR 244
Links:
Statutes:
Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EC), Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Unfair Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1985 (1985 No 752)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Returned from – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another QBD 1995
(Divisional and Court of appeal) The claimants sought judicial review of a condition requiring an employee to have had two years of continuous employment before becoming eligible to make a claim for unfair dismissal. This condition was neutrally . .
Reference to ECJ – Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Seymour Smith (1) HL 13-Mar-1997
The House referred to the European Court the question of whether the extension of the minimum period of employment before employment rights were acquired, was discriminatory. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the application of Smith) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another Admn 19-Nov-2002
The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, . .
Returned to – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
Applied – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and Another; Same v Bentley EAT 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to challenge the legislation which removed their employment rights upon attaining the age of 65, arguing that this was discriminatory against men. The Secretary of State appealed the tribunal’s decision.
Held: The tribunal . .
Cited – Rutherford and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 3-Sep-2004
The claimants alleged that the legislation governing retirement was indirectly discriminatory against men. Though the right not to be unfairly dismissed maximum age limit was the same for men and for women, that did not apply on a redundancy.
Cited – Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2) CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker’s child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory.
Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this . .
Cited – Home Office v Bailey and others CA 22-Mar-2005
Prison officers claimed awards for sex discrimination. The employer replied that the pools of comparators each contained members of either sex. The appellants sought to establish that any less favourable treatment of them in comparison with the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others HL 3-May-2006
The claimant sought to establish that as a male employee, he had suffered sex discrimination in that he lost rights to redundancy pay after the age of retirement where a woman might not.
Held: The appeal was dismised. There were very few . .
Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner SC 29-Jul-2013
Commissioner’s Approach not in Breach
In May 2010, a Mr Irvine made requests under the 2002 Act for information from South Lanarkshire Council. He wanted to know how many of their employees in a particular post were placed at 10 particular points on the Council’s pay scales. His . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment, European
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159046