Case C-668/15. Racial discrimination

Must the prohibition on direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in Article 2(2)(a) of...

EFTA Court 16 December 2015, case E-5/15 (M’bye), working time

An 84-hour working week imposed on resident therapists at a care home may in certain circumstances be compatible with Directive 2003/88.

Case C-27/16. Sex discrimination

Must Article [14](1)(c) of Directive 2006/54 on the implementation of the principle of equal...

2016/19 Reference in a termination letter to ‘retirement’ can cost the employer dearly (GE)

In businesses employing fewer than ten employees, the rules on unfair dismissal do not apply. However, those on discrimination do. This fact made it possible for the 63 year-old employee in this case to claim damages, effectively for unfair dismissal. She had been dismissed following a reduction in the available work. She was selected for redundancy because she was less qualified than her colleagues. However, her termination letter mentioned that she had become “eligible for retirement”. This remark created a presumption of age discrimination, which the employer was not able to rebut.

2016/32 Window sticker sufficient to allow evidence collected by surveillance camera (SP)

A decision issued by the Constitutional Court on 3 March 2016 upholds a High Court decision on whether evidence obtained through video surveillance at the work place without previously informing the employee or the works council of the recording infringes employees’ privacy. The existence of cameras in the workplace was only made known via a sticker on the shop window, but the Constitutional Court found that it provided sufficient information to employees. The Court found that, as there was a prior suspicion of theft by the employee, temporary recording of the cashier area was lawful and did not require prior consent. The judgment sets out the criteria to be used to determine a fair balance between the competing interests of employee privacy and the employer’s right to compliance.

2016/28 Employee compensated for employer’s refusal to move her to another office nearer home, as advised by the occupational doctor (FR)

An employer that fails to comply with an occupational doctor’s recommendation regarding an employee’s health, as it relates to his job, is in breach of its health and safety obligations.

ECJ 7 April 2016, case C-5/15 (Büyüktipi), legal expenses insurance

A legal expenses insurance policy must cover the cost of a lawyer of choice, even in administrative proceedings (judgment largely identical to that in Massar, also summarised in this edition of EELC).

2016/26 Dismissal of an employee with a disabled child was not discriminatory by association (DK)

It was neither direct nor indirect discrimination when a municipality dismissed a childminder with a disabled child, since the decision to dismiss was based on the interests of safeguarding children in the municipality’s childminding services, by not taking them out of their usual environment and placing them with a childminder they did not know.

Case C-668/15. Racial discrimination

Must the prohibition on direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in Article 2(2)(a) of...

EFTA Court 16 December 2015, case E-5/15 (M’bye), working time

An 84-hour working week imposed on resident therapists at a care home may in certain circumstances be compatible with Directive 2003/88.