In 2014, the ECJ was presented with a preliminary reference from the District Court in Kolding on the matter of whether EU law provides protection against discrimination on grounds of obesity with regard to employment and occupation. Following the ECJ’s ruling, first the District Court and later the High Court found that an employee’s obesity as such did not constitute a disability within the meaning of Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation since his obesity had not constituted a limitation or inconvenience in the performance of his job. |
Case Reports |
2021/6 Conclusion of the ECJ case on whether obesity may constitute a disability (DK) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2021 |
Keywords | Disability Discrimination |
Authors | Christian K. Clasen |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Case Reports |
2021/3 Application of a collective agreement and discrimination based on membership (non-membership) of a trade union (LT) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2021 |
Keywords | Collective Agreements, Other Forms of Discrimination |
Authors | Vida Petrylaitė |
AbstractAuthor's information |
On 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court of Lithuania (Cassation Court) delivered a ruling in a case where an employee claimed that the employer, JSC ‘Lithuanian Railways’, did not apply the regulations of the company’s employer-level collective agreement and did not pay a special bonus – an anniversary benefit (i.e. a benefit paid to employees on reaching a certain age) – because the employee was not a member of the trade union which had signed the collective agreement. According to the employee, she was discriminated against because of her membership of another trade union, i.e membership of the ‘wrong’ trade union. |
Case Reports |
2021/4 Budget considerations can justify indirect discrimination (UK) |
Journal | European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2021 |
Keywords | Discrimination General, Age Discrimination |
Authors | Carolyn Soakell |
AbstractAuthor's information |
If an employer has a policy which is indirectly discriminatory and the employer’s aim is no more than saving money, the Court of Appeal (CA) has ruled that this cannot justify the discrimination. However, needing to balance the books can potentially be a valid justification for indirect discrimination. |