Sex discrimination

New and updated

• Date:

  1 January 1994

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Cap requirement not discriminatory

  In Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that a female nurse, disciplined for refusing to wear a starched linen cap which male nurses did not have to wear, was not treated less favourably on grounds of sex.

• Date:

  1 November 1993

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Defences narrowed

  In Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (27 October 1993) EOR52A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is not sufficient for an employer to show that significant pay differences between female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs arose for non-discriminatory reasons.

• Date:

  1 September 1993

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Compensation limit unlawful

  In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (2 August 1993) EOR51A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to European Community law for a fixed upper limit to be placed on the compensation which can be awarded for the loss and damage suffered as a result of sex discrimination.

• Date:

  1 April 1993

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Identifying the "pool" for comparison

  In Jones v University of Manchester the Court of Appeal considers for the first time how a tribunal should define the "pool" of people upon which it should base its calculation of whether a requirement imposed by an employer indirectly discriminates against one sex.

• Date:

  1 September 1990

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Gender-based criteria are directly discriminatory

  In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (14 June 1990) EOR33B, the House of Lords holds that the test for determining whether there has been direct discrimination is "would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?". It is not necessary for complainants to prove in addition that the subjective reason they were treated less favourably was because of their gender.

• Date:

  17 July 1990

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Lords approve "but for" test in direct discrimination cases

  In a sex discrimination case the crucial question is whether the complainant would have received the same treatment but for his or her sex.

• Date:

  19 June 1990

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Equality required in occupational pensions

  The European Court of Justice holds that occupational pensions payable under a contracted-out scheme constitute "pay" under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, and so must be offered to men and women on equal terms.

• Date:

  1 August 1986

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz

  In Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] IRLR 317 ECJ, the European Court of Justice held that the exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome if this exclusion affects significantly more women than men, unless the employer can show that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

• Date:

  1 May 1986

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discriminatory retirement age

  In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (26.2.86) EOR7E, the European Court of Justice rules that compulsory retirement of men and women at different ages contravenes the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.

• Date:

  7 August 1984

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discrimination: Ban on part-timers unjustified

  In The Home Office v Holmes, the EAT holds that a ban on part-time work can amount to unlawful sex discrimination.