It is age discrimination when employers ignore experience gained prior to 18 years of age

Hutter v Technische Universität Graz - Case C-88/08 3rd Div ECJ [2009]

www.workrep.co.uk - providing free legal information, advice and representation to workers

    Helping You     Self-Help     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

21/06/09   

Mr Hutter was employed as an apprentice lab technician where a colleague was paid more on the basis of having more post 18 years apprenticeship than himself. Mr Hutter's experience gained prior to his 18th year was discounted by his employer.

This practice was legal according to Austrian law but Mr Hutter argued this breached the Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78.

The Austrian government tried unsuccessfully to invoke Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 of pleading justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age that, "if within the context of national law they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary".

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its judgment quoted Article 2 of Directive 2000/78 outlawing all forms of direct and indirect discrimination. The ECJ did not think that the discrimination was subject to the Article 6 escape clause whereby discrimination could be justified by having a legitimate aim.

The ECJ agreed with Hutter when it decided that Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC forbids national legislation that excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account when deciding pay and seniority according to experience.

The transcript of this case can be found here




Other recent cases:-

An ongoing difficulty in doing everyday activities (independantly of when this occurs)indicates the existence of disability
Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams [2009] UKEAT 0046_08_0304
An employment tribunal needs to first identify loss suffered by the employee at the time of dismissal before estimating compensation
Saunders v OCS Group Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0051_09_2805     
Major EAT boost to TUPE service provision change protections – A “common sense and pragmatic approach is required”
Metropolitan Resources v Cambridge EAT 2009    
Former employee sued (Unsuccessfully)for fudging medical history
Cheltenham BC v Christine Laird – High Court QBD – 2009
Constructively dismissed can claim notice pay without needing to offset against income from new job
Peters Ltd v Bell EAT [2009]
Redundancy was a sham in response to protected disclosures
El-Megrisi v Azad University - UKEAT - [2009]
When deciding compensation the ET was entitled to speculate on the future losses of the claimant.
Islam Channel Ltd v Ridley [2009] UKEAT - [2009]
Apprentice was discriminated against when his employers ignored experience gained prior to 18 years of age
Hutter v Technische Universität Graz - Case C-88/08 3rd Div ECJ 2009 - [2009]
Non-payment of a tribunal award was basis of claim for post decision victimisation claim
Rank Nemo Ltd & Ors v Coutinho - [2009] EWCA Civ 454
With reinstatement orders, the claimant's behaviour must be taken into account by the ET
Central & NW London NHS Trust v Abimbola - EAT 2009

Post decision vexatious behaviour lost the claimant his compensation
Aryeetey v Tuntum Housing Association [2009] EAT

Workers may claim for unpaid holiday not only under regulations 13,14 and 16 of the Working Time Regulations (WTR) but also as unauthorised deductions of pay   -    
HMRC v Stringer and others - HoL 2009

'Illogical' to only award costs for counsel but not solicitor after warning to respondent about 'hopeless' strikeout attempt
  -    
HARROGATE NHS TRUST v MOCKFORD - EAT 2009
Pyrric Victories - half of workers fail to receive their employment tribunal awards
Not Awarding Costs Over False Allegations Was 'Perverse' - Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew - EAT 2009
Constructive Dismissal:- 1) An Employer's Breach Of Contract Can Be Repaired 2) 'Reasonable Range' Rule Does Not Apply - Buckland v Bournemouth University - EAT 2009
Redundancy - Length of service may be taken into account - ROLLS-ROYCE PLC v UNITE UNION - CA 2009
Tribunals Have Discretion Regarding Time Extensions For Originating Applications (ET1) - Carter v London Underground Limited EAT 2009
Blacklisting of Workers To Be Outlawed
Disability and avoidance of adjustments at interview - Limits of employer's 'ignorance' plea defined - EAT 2009
The Court of Appeal's unreasonable affinity for the 'Range of Reasonable Responses' - London Ambulance v Small [2009]
Employment tribunals will first consider whether the case is in time.
Farr v Ryefell Ltd - EAT - [2009]
Starting off on the wrong foot - those little details - Chowles v West - EAT 2008
Absence of dismissal warning in Step 1 email was automatically unfair - Zimmer v Brezan
Council fails in GMF defence to equal pay claims COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL v NICHOLLS - EAT 2009
Novacold Overuled, Malcolm Confirmed; Comparator test in discrimination cases Is now higher
Forcible Retirement - ECJ 2009
The tribunal must not elaborate when answering questions put by the EAT (Burns-Barke procedure) - WOODHOUSE SCHOOL v WEBSTER - [2009] EWCA Civ 91
Sham Contracts - Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi - CA 2009
EAT Guidance For Harassment Cases - RICHMOND v DHALIWAL 2009
Dismissal for proselytising not unfair or discriminatory
When does the clock start ticking in a disability discrimination case? - Matuszowicz v Kingston CC - (CA 2009)
Collective agreements negotiated after a transfer still bind the transferee- Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Ltd EAT 2009
Tribunals should “give reasons which are candid, intelligible, transparent and coherent”   -  CLARK v CLARK CONSTRUCTION - 2008
Agency workers are to receive the same pay and conditions as permanent staff

Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. For further information click here
WorkRep is based in the the North West region of the UK and represents mainly in the areas served by the Manchester employment tribunal and the Liverpool employment tribunal. We advise claimants throughout the country however and resources permitting are prepared to represent employment tribunal claimants throughout England and Wales.
Lawyers routinely use the threat of costs to intimidate workers into giving up their employment tribunal claims at an early stage. Some lawyers use this tactic indiscriminately against claimants with success.   For further information regarding resisting costs actions in employment tribunals or if you have any employment problem click here

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only.  Please read the site info before using this website  © 2009 Workrep