Recently, the Danish Eastern High Court found that an employee’s sickness absence was a result of the employer’s failure to comply with its obligation to offer reasonable accommodation for the employee’s disability. For that reason the employee, who was dismissed in pursuance of the Danish ‘120-day rule’, was entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal under the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act.

Child benefits connected with pursuing activities as employed persons are social advantages within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011/EU. Articles 1(i) and 67 of Regulation 883/2004/EC in conjunction with Articles 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 and Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC preclude provisions according to which member states provide frontier workers only child benefits for their own children, but not for their spouses’ children who they support, while all children living in the member state are entitled to these childs benefits.

Directive 2000/78/EC, in particular the Articles 2(2), 3(1) and 6(1), does not preclude provisions prohibiting public administrative authorities from awarding analysis and consultancy roles to individuals who are already retired public or private employees, provided that the provisions pursue a legitimate aim in the field of employment and the labour market and the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary. This is for the referring court to determine.

The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by one of the UK’s major supermarket chains, overturning a finding that it was vicariously liable for a rogue employee’s deliberate disclosure of payroll data related to some 100,000 co-workers, of whom 10,000 brought a group claim for damages.

Declarations by a person during a radio programme stating that he did not want to recruit homosexual persons to his firm nor use their services are covered by Directive 2000/78/EC.

The dismissal of an employee for gross misconduct was unfair because the investigating officer failed to share significant new information with the manager conducting the disciplinary hearing who decided to dismiss, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.

The notice of collective redundancies required to be given to an employment agency pursuant to Section 17(1) of the German Protection Against Unfair Dismissal Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz, ‘KSchG’) can only be effectively submitted if the employer has already decided to terminate the employment contract at the time of its receipt by the employment agency. Notices of termination in collective redundancy proceedings are therefore effective – subject to the fulfilment of any other notice requirements – if the proper notice is received by the competent employment agency before the employee has received the letter of termination.

In case of a transfer of undertaking involving multiple transferees, the rights and obligations arising from an employment contract may be divided between various transferees, if this is possible. If not (or if it is to the detriment of the employee), the transferees would be regarded as being responsible for any consequent termination under Article 4 of Directive 2001/23, even if this were to be initiated by the worker.

In a recent Supreme Court decision, it was held by a 4-1 majority that there is no reason, in principle, why the provision of ‘reasonable accommodation’ for an employee with a disability should not involve the redistribution of duties.

The Belgian Court of Cassation (Supreme Court), in a decision of 20 January 2020, has ruled that the prohibition for an employer to terminate the employment relationship of a worker for reasons related to a complaint for acts of violence and/or moral and/or sexual harassment at work does not, however, preclude the dismissal from being justified by motives inferred from the facts set out in the complaint.

E101 certificates which were fraudulently obtained can only be disregarded under specified conditions.

Directive 2003/88/EC precludes a self-employed independent contractor from being classified as a ‘worker’ under the Directive, if they are afforded discretion on the use of subcontractors, acceptance of tasks, providing services to third parties and fixing their own hours of work, provided that the independence does not appear to be fictitious and no relationship of subordination between them and their putative employer can be established.

The Federal Labour Court of Germany (Bundesarbeitsgericht, ‘BAG’) has decided that a social plan that distinguished between employees who were born in 1960 or later and employees who were born before 1960 for the calculation of severance payment did not constitute unjustified age discrimination. However, a regulation in a social plan which referred to the “earliest possible” entitlement to a statutory pension when calculating the severance payment constituted unjustified indirect discrimination against disabled persons.

A person does not necessarily need to have the power to change prices of goods which he sells as an agent for his principal, to be classified as commercial agent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC.

Within the context of a claim of psychological harassment, based on Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the EP’s Director-General for Personnel should have provided claimant at the least with a summary of the records of witness hearings drafted by the Advisory Committee. The annulment of the decision at issue constitutes appropriate compensation for any non-material damage which the appellant may have suffered in the present case.