Discrimination Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4500 words

Discrimination Law - Case Study Example scorn the fact that it is one of the most important types of the law in the UK, it nevertheless is widely regarded as one of the most cumbersome, inconsistent and complex lawmaking. This is due to the fact that that the person might be discriminated on many reasons and sometimes it might be difficult to distinguish between actual discrimination and legitimate actions that employer might take in the interest of the company. However, one should consider deuce main types of discrimination- sex and racial discrimination in order to evaluate the efficiency of the current anti discriminatory legislation in the United nation more thanover, the British anti discrimination legislation should conform to the anti-discriminatory legislation of the EU.The case of Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v. Karin Weber Von Hartz is widely regarded as one of the most important cases in the anti-discriminatory legislation practice of the EU. One should recall the main features of this case. According to the documents provided in the case Bilka 1(which was a supermarket at the Western Germany) had occupational scheme for the workers employed by it. Despite the fact that scheme had been changed several times it was still regarded as an indispensable part of the contracts signed between workers and employers. Since 1973 the contract had stipulated that part-time workers could receive pensions only if they worked near time at least 15 years in the period of twenty years. Mrs Weber( who was working part-time) brought litigation against Bilka claiming that the above mentioned methods of paying pension was the violation of the article 119 of the EEC treaty (as this methods of the payments, in her opinion discriminated women against men, as women were more likely to be employed part time in order to look aft(prenominal) their children). Bilka refuted these allegations and asserted that there were strong economic grounds for excluding part time workers from its pensions scheme, as the employment of full time workers lowered ancillary cost and provided more opportunities for the using of staff throughout all opening hours. According to the information provided by the company it paid 81.3 share of its pensions to women, whereas women constituted only 72 percent of its work force, thus in view of Bilkas representatives there was no sex discrimination in the scheme mentioned. The case was still being considered at the Bundesarbeitsgericht and the hook provided the following questions whether there was indirect discrimination in the scope of the article 119 of the treaty and whether the company should modify the scheme so to accommodate workers who had to look afterward their families. In view of the representatives of the United Kingdom the scheme mentioned did non violate the article of 119 of the treaty as this article did not regulate the issue mentioned, tho citing the case of Defrenne v Sabena, ECR they claimed that article 119 regu lated pay discrimination between men and women and thus it could not be applied to other elements of employment. It also claimed that Council directive on the implementation of the principles of equal pay between men and women that was submitted by the commission on 5 May, 1983 was the proof of the fact that the pension schemes were covered not by the article 119, but rather by Articles 117 and 118. Nevertheless, the Commission hold the view that the schemes mentioned fell within the scope of