The Equal Treatment Directive (EC 76/207) provides that every Member State must introduce measures to enable individuals to pursue claims for equal treatment. An individual may pursue a claim against the State as an employer
The most significant change made by the 1986 Act arose from the decision in Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire AHA (1986). The health authority had a policy which resulted in the dismissal of women because they had attained the State pension age, which is a different age for men and women. As a result Ms Marshall was forced to leave her employment; she then decided to challenge this policy. It is held by the ECJ that the term ‘dismissal’ in Art 5 of the Equal Treatment Directive must be given a wide meaning; that being so, the compulsory dismissal of workers pursuant to a policy concerning retirement related to conditions governing dismissal, which were then subject to Art 5. Where that policy then resulted in different retirement ages for men and women, there had been a contravention of the Article.
It should be stated that even EC law has its limitations. There are many areas of discrimination which have only recently been brought within the framework for protection from discrimination, for example, race, religion, disability and sexual orientation. However, Art 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (OJ 2000 L303/16) extends anti-discrimination to racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It also prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination, and specifically recognises hypothetical comparisons in respect of direct discrimination. Member States will be subject to a series of deadlines, by which each aspect must be legislated for.
The Equal Treatment Directive (EC 76/207) provides that every Member State must introduce measures to enable individuals to pursue claims for equal treatment. An individual may pursue a claim against the State as an employerThe most significant change made by the 1986 Act arose from the decision in Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire AHA (1986). The health authority had a policy which resulted in the dismissal of women because they had attained the State pension age, which is a different age for men and women. As a result Ms Marshall was forced to leave her employment; she then decided to challenge this policy. It is held by the ECJ that the term ‘dismissal’ in Art 5 of the Equal Treatment Directive must be given a wide meaning; that being so, the compulsory dismissal of workers pursuant to a policy concerning retirement related to conditions governing dismissal, which were then subject to Art 5. Where that policy then resulted in different retirement ages for men and women, there had been a contravention of the Article.It should be stated that even EC law has its limitations. There are many areas of discrimination which have only recently been brought within the framework for protection from discrimination, for example, race, religion, disability and sexual orientation. However, Art 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (OJ 2000 L303/16) extends anti-discrimination to racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It also prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination, and specifically recognises hypothetical comparisons in respect of direct discrimination. Member States will be subject to a series of deadlines, by which each aspect must be legislated for.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..