In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (31 July 1995) EOR63A, the Court of Appeal declares that the two-year qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal indirectly discriminated against women and was incompatible with the EEC Equal Treatment Directive as at the date of the applicants' dismissal in May 1991.
In Staffordshire County Council v Black (2 September 1994) EOR61B, the EAT holds that the same test must be applied to cases of alleged indirect discrimination under EC equal pay law as to cases under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
In Methilhill Bowling Club v Hunter (6 February 1995) EOR61C, the EAT rules that a part-time worker whose unfair dismissal claim was rejected on grounds that she did not have the five years' service then necessary for an employee working between eight and 16 hours per week to be able to bring a complaint, was entitled to bring a fresh complaint directly under Article 119 of the EC Treaty.
In Coloroll Pension Trustees Ltd v Russell (28 September 1994) EOR58A, the European Court of Justice rules that trustees of occupational pension schemes are bound by Article 119 of the EC Treaty in the same way as employers.
In Smith v Avdel Systems Ltd (28 September 1994) EOR58D, the European Court of Justice rules that once equality has been achieved, harmonisation of pension ages can be downwards by increasing the women's age to that of men.
In Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (14 July 1994) EOR57A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a woman employed for an unlimited term who, shortly after her recruitment is found to be pregnant, notwithstanding that she was recruited initially to replace another employee during the latter's maternity leave.
In Mediguard Services Ltd v Thame (29 July 1994) EOR57B, the EAT rules that unfair dismissal compensation is "pay" for the purpose of Article 119 of the EC Treaty, so that private sector employees with two years' service working between eight and 16 hours per week can bring an unfair dismissal complaint against their employers by relying directly upon EC law.
In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (20 May 1994) EOR57C, the Divisional Court rejects a complaint that the two-year service qualification for bringing an unfair dismissal complaint indirectly discriminates against women contrary to the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.
In Habermann-Beltermann v Arbeiterwohlfahrt, Bezirksverband Ndb/Opf eV (5 May 1994) EOR56B, the European Court of Justice holds that termination of a contract without a fixed term on account of a woman's pregnancy cannot be justified on the ground that a statutory prohibition, imposed because of pregnancy, temporarily prevents the employee from performing night work.
In Blaik v The Post Office (16 November 1993) EOR56D, the EAT rules that a complaint cannot be brought directly under the EEC Equal Treatment Directive where there is a sufficient remedy under the British Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to EU employment measures.