Sex Discrimination - Cases/facts Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Article 157

A

equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Directive 75/117

A

Equal pay for equal work directive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Directive 2006/54

A

Equal treatment in employment directive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Defrenne v SABENA

A

– Sued previous employer using article 157 (CJ held to have direct effect). CJ ruled in Defrenne’s favour, however only propspective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Rinner-Kuhn

A

Where part-time workers were not entitled to sick pay. This is indirect discrimination as in reality most part-time workers are women due to child care restraints.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Jenkins v Kingsgate

A

Full-time workers paid more than part-time workers even though they do the same job. Not indirect discrimination if objectively justified, and unrelated to sex. (informed later directive)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Enderby v Frenchay

A

Where one category of workers is paid less than another category though work assumed to be of equal value, yet one category are men and other women. Here indirect sex discrimination.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Bilka 3 rules for objective justification

A

Serves real need of undertaking, Appropriate of objective pursued (Proportionality), Necessary to achieve that end, it may be justified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What case shows that the necessary aims of social policy may jusitfy sexual discrimination?

A

Rinner-Kuhn

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Dismissed transsexual, this was held to be ground of gender so was upheld under article 157

A

P v S & Cornwall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Grant v SW Trains Ltd

A

Gay couple not granted travel benefits as not gender issue but sexual preference issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

article 19 TFEU –

A

General anti-discrimination article.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Anglestern (D75/117)

A

Equal treatment extended to work of equal value in

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Rummler v Dato-Druck

A

Classification system must be the same for men and women. But can include a consideration of physical effort, as long as this is not sexually discriminatory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the criteria for job classification in the Royal Copenhagen case?

A

established test for the classification of jobs; The nature of work, The training requirements, The working conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Coote v Granada

A

The directive also protects against victimisation and poor references

17
Q

D2006/54 derogations art 14(2);Objective justification of discrimination where;

A

sex is determining factor, For protection of women, particularly pregnancy & maternity, For the purpose of positive discrimination

18
Q

Commission v UK (male midwives)

A

Restrictions on male midwives (later lifted)

19
Q

Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC

A

Refusal to renew officers contract because of new policy excluding women from carrying guns. Thought that terrorists would target female police officers. Sex of worker is determining factor in unequal treatment, but justified.

20
Q

Sirdar v Army Board

A

Not allowed to serve on front line as might have to take up arms. Was not soldier, was support. Contrast with Kreil, which was not allowed as disproportionate

21
Q

Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse

A

Parental leave but only for mothers. Parental leave directive 96/34

22
Q

Ministere Public v Stoeckel

A

Blanket ban on women undertaking night work not allowed

23
Q

Tele-Danmark

A

Rights of employee are not affected by non-disclosure of pregnancy

24
Q

Wiebke Nielsen

A

Employee not obliged to declare pregnancy at recruitment stage

25
Q

Dekker

A

Woman applied for job, rejected on basis of pregnancy and employer could not afford to cover cost of hiring another worker for maternity leave. Judged that this contravened Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 now article 2(2) of directive 2006/54.

26
Q

Hertz

A

Pregnancy related illness after maternity leave has expired it is possible to sack on that basis. However not possible to take into account absences due to pregnancy in decision to fire.

27
Q
  • Pregnancy and maternity directive 92/85
A

Prohibits dismissal from beginning of pregnancy till end of maternity leave

28
Q

Tes-Achtats

A

Belgian case taken to ECJ challenging legality of Gender Directive 2004/113 which allowed use of gender in calculation of premiums. From 21st December 2012 no longer allowed to use gender in the calculation of insurance premiums.