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 women was substantial.
Times 25-Feb-1999, C-167/97, [1999] IRLR 253, [1999] ICR 447, [1999] ECR I-623, [1999] EUECJ C-167/97
Bailii
EC Treaty 119
European
Citing:
Reference from – 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. . .
Returned to – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
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 . .
Cited – Inge Nolte v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover ECJ 14-Dec-1995
Europa Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that persons in employment which is . .
Cited by:
Cited – Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Chew EAT 27-Sep-2001
The Constabulary appealed against a decision that they were guilty of indirect sex discrimination, as regards the way they had implemented part time working and shift duties. The parties differed as the pool of employees from which the comparison . .
Returned from – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
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 . .
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, European
Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.162113
