Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Coherence of EU Antidiscrimination Law: A Look at its Systemic Approach in Light of Relational Grounds of Discrimination and Collective Norms in Employment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 1))

  • 765 Accesses

Abstract

EU Antidiscrimination law is at a turning point in the development of its legal standards and their interpretation. It requires internal and external coherence to ensure its meaningful enforcement in the future as a means for social justice. The legal framework has drawn in the past from a more structural view of grounds and concepts of discrimination. Examples from gender and sexual orientation discrimination in employment cases and norms reflect this trend by anchoring relational issues of parenting, social rights and work life balance in the equation of equality law and illustrate the future challenges involved linked to collective norms concluded by the social partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case 127/92, Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (ECJ 27 October 1993), para. 22.

  2. 2.

    See generally Mercat-Bruns et al. (2018).

  3. 3.

    In the US, It is linked to a particularly high number of claims, litigated jointly and generated by a particular pattern or practice of discrimination, See my article.

  4. 4.

    Which is the case in Canada, see my article.

  5. 5.

    Case 149/77, Defrenne v Sabena (ECJ 15 June 1987).

  6. 6.

    Article 19 TFEU.

  7. 7.

    Article 157 TFEU.

  8. 8.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303/16–22 (2000).

  9. 9.

    Neuvonen (2016), p. 148.

  10. 10.

    Case 595/12, Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia (ECJ 6 March 2014).

  11. 11.

    Case 595/12, Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia (ECJ 6 March 2014), para. 1.

  12. 12.

    Case 595/12, Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia (ECJ 6 March 2014), para. 36: ‘It must be stated that a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for automatic exclusion from a training course and renders it impossible to sit the examination organised at the end of that course, without account being taken, in particular, either of the stage of the course at which the absence for maternity leave takes place or of the training already received, and which merely grants the woman who has taken such leave the right to participate in a training course organised at a later, but uncertain, date, does not appear to comply with the principle of proportionality.’.

  13. 13.

    Case 116/06, Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki (ECJ 20 September 2007).

  14. 14.

    Equivalent wages, Case 194/08, Gassmayr v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung (ECJ 1 July 2010); Case 471/08, Parvianien v Oyj (ECJ 1 July 2010); or equivalent rights after termination rights; Case 116/08, Meerts v Proost NV (ECJ 22 October 2009).

  15. 15.

    The CJEU responded that the rights in the Framework Agreement on parental leave were afforded to parents in their capacity as workers, in order to assist them to reconcile their parental and working responsibilities. There was no right relating to parental leave given to the child, in the Framework Agreement. Case 149/10, Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (ECJ 16 September 2010).

  16. 16.

    See judgments in Case 312/86, CommissionvFrance (ECJ 25 October 1988), para. 14; Case 366/99, Griesmar v Ministre de l’Economie (ECJ 6 April 2002), para. 56; Case 559/07, Commission v Greece (ECJ 26 March 2009), para. 69, recalled in Case 222/14, Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis (ECJ 16 July 2015).

  17. 17.

    Case 222/14, Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis (ECJ 16 July 2015), para. 57.

  18. 18.

    Case 41/17, Castro v Umivale (ECJ 19 September 2018).

  19. 19.

    Case 104/09, Roca Alvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA (ECJ 30 September 2010).

  20. 20.

    Case 366/99, Griesmar v Ministre de l’Economie (ECJ 29 November 2001).

  21. 21.

    Case 199/12 to Case 201/12, X, Y, Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel (ECJ 7 November 2013).

  22. 22.

    See McColgan (2014), p. 23.

  23. 23.

    See Waddington and Broderick (2018), Combatting disability discrimination and realizing equality, A comparison of the UNCRPD and EU Equality and non-discrimination Law, EU Commission Report, p. 74

  24. 24.

    On the resistance of the Court in sexual orientation cases, see Case 443/15, David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin and Others (ECJ 24 November 2016).

  25. 25.

    Barnard (2012), p. 254.

  26. 26.

    Mercat-Bruns (2018), p. 1; Dreano (2018), p. 24.

  27. 27.

    Case 236/09, Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and Others v Conseil des ministers (ECJ 1 March 2011).

  28. 28.

    Art. 119 EEC.

  29. 29.

    Case 43/75, Defrenne v Sabena (ECJ 8 April 1976), para. 1.

  30. 30.

    Case 237/85, Gisela Rummler v Dato-Druck GmbH (ECJ 1 July 1986).

  31. 31.

    Case 237/85, Gisela Rummler v Dato-Druck GmbH (ECJ 1 July 1986).

  32. 32.

    Case 96/80, Jenkins v Kingsgate (ECJ 31 March 1981).

  33. 33.

    Case 409/16, Kalliri v Ypourgos Esoterikon (ECJ 18 October 2017).

  34. 34.

    Case 409/16, Kalliri v Ypourgos Esoterikon (ECJ 18 October 2017), para. 42.

  35. 35.

    Case 123/10, Brachner v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (ECJ 20 October 2011).

  36. 36.

    Case 123/10, Brachner v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (ECJ 20 October 2011), para. 3.

  37. 37.

    Case 267/06, Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen (ECJ 1 April 2008): considerations of social policy, of State organisation, of ethics, or even the budgetary concerns which influenced or may have influenced the establishment by the national legislature of a scheme cannot prevail if the pension concerns only a particular category of workers, if it is directly related to the period of service completed and if its amount is calculated by reference to the last salary (Case 7/93, Beune v Bestuur van het Algemeen burgerlijk pensioenfonds (ECJ 28 September 1994), para. 45; Case 147/95, Evrenopoulos v DEI (ECJ 17 April 1997), para. 21; Case 366/99, Griesmar v Ministre de l’Economie (ECJ 6 April 2002), para. 30; Case 351/00, Niemi (ECJ 12 September 2002), para. 47; Case 4/02, Schönheit v Stadt Frankfurt am Main and Case 5/02, Becker v Land Hessen (ECJ 23 October 2003), para. 58.

  38. 38.

    Case 147/08, Römer v Hansestadt Hamburg (ECJ 10 May 2011).

  39. 39.

    Case 267/12, Frédéric Hay v Crédit Agricole Mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sévres (ECJ 12 December 2013).

  40. 40.

    Case 267/12, Frédéric Hay v Crédit Agricole Mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sévres (ECJ 12 December 2013), para. 44: ‘The difference in treatment based on the employees’ marital status and not expressly on their sexual orientation is still direct discrimination because only persons of different sexes may marry and homosexual employees are therefore unable to meet the condition required for obtaining the benefit claimed.’.

  41. 41.

    The request for preliminary review by the French Supreme Court was based on indirect and not direct discrimination.

  42. 42.

    Case 83/14, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria’ AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (ECJ 16 July 2015).

  43. 43.

    Sheppard (2010) and Green (2016).

  44. 44.

    See EU case law Abrahamsson, standard for positive action Case 407/98, Abrahamsson v Fogelqvist (ECJ 6 July 2000); see Mercat-Bruns (2016), p. 35.

  45. 45.

    European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU (2019). www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0348_EN.html.

  46. 46.

    The Directive will bring new rights in many European countries including: 10 days paternity leave around the birth of a child and paid at sick-leave level; 5 days carers leave—although unfortunately without any obligation for the leave to be paid; the right for parents and carers to request flexible working arrangements to which employers must respond and provide a justification.

  47. 47.

    European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 April 2019 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU (2019), para. 38.

  48. 48.

    See Case 411/05, Palacio v Cortefiel Servicios SA (ECJ 16 October 2007).

  49. 49.

    Presumption recently reversed based on the shift of the burden of proof in EU equality law, Cour de cassation 3 April 2019 n°17-11.970), see www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_sociale_576/558_3_41900.html.

  50. 50.

    O’Cinneide (2006), p. 57.

  51. 51.

    See in the US, the past experience of unequal representation in collective bargaining agreements which discriminated against blacks, Steele v Louisville, US Supreme Court.

  52. 52.

    Case 12/17, Dicu v Ministerul Justiţiei and Tribunalul Botoşani (ECJ 4 October 2018).

  53. 53.

    Case 12/17, Dicu v Ministerul Justiţiei and Tribunalul Botoşani (ECJ 4 October 2018), para. 35.

  54. 54.

    Case 282/10, Maribel Dominguez gegen Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique (ECJ 24 January 2012).

References

  • Barnard, Catherine. 2012. EU Employment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreano, Maëlle. 2018. La non-discrimination en droit des contrats. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Tristin. 2016. Discrimination Laundering: The Rise of Organizational Innocence and the Crisis of Equal Opportunity Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McColgan, Aileen. 2014. Discrimination, Equality and the Law. Oxford: Hart-Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercat-Bruns, Marie. 2016. Discrimination at Work: Comparing French, European and American Law. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercat-Bruns, Marie, Oppenheimer David, and Sartorius Cady. 2018. Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neuvonen, Päivi Johanna. 2016. From a ‘Relative’ to a ‘Relational’ Equality: Rethinking Comparability in the Light of Relational Accounts of Social Justice. In Equal Is Not Enough, ed. Daniël Cuypers and Jogchum Vrielink, 135–153. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Cinneide, Colm. 2006. Fumbling Towards Coherence: The Slow Evolution of Equality and Antidiscrimination Law in Britain. Northern Ireland Law Quarterly 57: 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, Colleen. 2010. Inclusive Equality. Sherbrooke: McGill Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, Lisa, and Andrea Broderick. 2018. Combatting Disability Discrimination and Realizing Equality, A Comparison of the UNCRPD and EU Equality and Non-Discrimination Law, EU Commission Report. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Paris, France

    Marie Mercat-Bruns

Authors
  1. Marie Mercat-Bruns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Mercat-Bruns .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europa-Institut, Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Thomas Giegerich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mercat-Bruns, M. (2020). The Coherence of EU Antidiscrimination Law: A Look at its Systemic Approach in Light of Relational Grounds of Discrimination and Collective Norms in Employment. In: Giegerich, T. (eds) The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43763-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43764-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation