Employees of state hospitals in Hamburg were granted the right in 1995 to continued employment in case of privatization of the hospitals. In 2000, the cleaning staff were spun off into a separate company which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state hospitals. Upon privatization in 2005, the right to continued employment was applied only to those employees employed by the state hospitals, not those employed by the wholly-owned subsidiary company.
The 51-year-old claimant, a female employee, argued that the age limit on her employer’s pension fund discriminated against her based on, among other things, her gender, . The age limit only provided for pension claims for employees who were not older than 50 at the beginning of their employment. However, the claimant had stopped working after the birth of her child and did not return to the work force until she was 51. Her child was already 25 years old at that time and had fully completed his vocational training.
This appellate decision overruled the Berlin-Brandenburg Labor Court’s (Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg) 2008 decision 15 Sa 517/08 which held that the plaintiff was discriminated against in the course of her employment on the basis of her gender. She sued her employer in trial labor court in Berlin on the grounds of discrimination after a male colleague received a promotion to a management role that she had hoped for and for which she considered herself to be equally qualified.
The claimant, a female employee, exercised her right under the Transparency in Wage Structures Act (available here: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/entgtranspg/BJNR215210017.html) to obtain information from her employer about the average salary in the group of colleagues who performed the same or equivalent work as she did as a head of department. She found that her compensation was below average.
At issue was a challenge to a German federal statute requiring employers to pay up to six weeks of annual sick leave for employees who worked more than 10 hours per week, or more than 45 hours per month. The applicant sued her employer, an office cleaning company for whom she worked ten hours per week, after the employer refused her request for eight hours of sick pays.
The Court found a law that only required men, and not women, to serve as firefighters, or alternatively, required men to pay a fire service levy, was discriminatory and violated the ECHR.
Der Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass ein Gesetz, das nur Männer und nicht Frauen zum Feuerwehrdienst verpflichtete bzw. von Männern die Zahlung einer Feuerwehrgebühr verlangte, diskriminierend war und gegen die EMRK verstieß.
The plaintiff, an unmarried father, took off six months from work to take care of the child while the child’s mother was working for which he demanded “maternity” leave payments for from the defendant, the relevant sickness fund. The defendant refused to pay. The German lower social court decided that the legislation only permitted maternity leave and not paternity leave. On appeal, the German state social court involved the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in order to interpret Directive 76/207 with respect to the raised issue.
