Question | Answer |
Turley v Allders | There is no male equivalent to a pregnant worker. |
Dekker v Stichting | Refusing to hire someone because of the potential adverse economic costs is direct discrimination and a breach of the Equal Treatment Directive. |
Webb v EMO | The ECJ held that this was still direct discrimination as the job offer was withdrawn as a result of the pregnancy. |
Busch v Klinikum | The ECJ held that the employer was not entitled to take her pregnancy into account when deciding to end the parental leave. The claimant was under no obligation to inform her employer of her pregnancy and the financial loss was irrelevant. |
Hertz v Aldi | The ECJ held that dismissal for pregnancy related illness is not unlawful. There is no need to distinguish between pregnancy related illness and any other illness after maternity. |
Browne v Rentokil | An employer cannot dismiss a pregnant worker due to pregnancy related illness. The contractual terms are irrelevant. |
McKenna v North Western Healthboard | Women on maternity leave are only entitled to a payment. There is no reason why the payment would have to be the same as the normal salary. If an employee is out sick during her pregnancy she can also have her pay reduced as long as it isn't in a discriminatory nature. |
Thibault | An employer cannot deny any women on maternity leave the benefit of any improvements in working conditions to which she would have been entitled to if she had not been on maternity leave. |
Bolger on Dekker | A landmark finding that pregnancy discrimination is unlawful gender discrimination. |
Daly and Doherty on Busch | This decision tested the boundaries of the principle of non-discrimination. |
Cox et al on McKenna | The reluctance of the ECJ to extend the protections provided to pregnant workers as regards discriminatory dismissal to other conditions such as pay. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.