.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

EU Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

EU - Case Study Example td justified its actions by pointing to some provisions in the sex discrimination act 1975 that allowed discrimination in regard to employee retirement. By referring to section 6(4) of the act, section 6(2) does not apply to retirement or death. Also, the equal pay act 1970 did not prevent an employer from using discriminatory retirement ages on men and women. Thus, s6 (2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 did not help Mrs Duke win her case against her employer. The equal treatment directive states that any discrimination is unlawful. However, it is normally possible for a state to fail in implementing the directive. In such a situation, the claimant has to prove that it was the state’s failure to do what it was required to do. Since the directive had not been implemented by the state, it is acceptable for the state to compensate the claimant. However, for the state to be required to compensate the employee, the employer has to be considered an arm of the state. Since Mrs Duke’s employer was a private employer, her claim will not be allowed. Both the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act did not reflect the Equal Treatment Directive simply because the state had failed to implement the directive. As such, individuals would be deprived of some of their rights. This reasoning swayed the court’s opinion hence making them to rule against the appellant by stating that discrimination in relation to retirement was allowed. Lord Templeman relied on the Von Colson Case to make judgement on the case that lay before him. He argued that the Von Colson Case did not enable the German court to invent a law of adequate compensation when such law does not exist. Also, the case is no authority in the proposition that a member state court should distort a domestic statute’s meaning to achieve or conform with community law. Therefore, lord Templeman stated that it was unfair to GEC Reliance Ltd distort the meaning of the sex discrimination act

No comments:

Post a Comment