The Court of Appeal has given guidance on how to determine employment status in discrimination cases where the claimant is engaged on a case-by-case basis. The judgment confirms that the lack of mutual obligations between the putative employer and employee between assignments can be a relevant factor. If an individual is engaged on an assignment-by-assignment basis, with the freedom to turn down work when it is offered, this may imply a lack of subordination during the periods of work. The absence of an overarching ‘umbrella’ contract between assignments may therefore be relevant when determining whether an individual is protected by discrimination law.

It is possible to make a claim for unlawful discrimination in respect of termination of an employment contract even if no claims has been made for unlawful termination.

A discriminatory refusal to offer an employee a new employment contract upon expiry of a fixed term contract is not discriminatory dismissal but a discriminatory refusal to give access to employment. The employer is liable for emotional damages.

The Austrian Supreme Court has ruled that the general prohibition of Muslim face veils by an employer does not constitute unlawful discrimination. In this landmark decision, Austria’s Supreme Court expresses the view that an uncovered face is a prerequisite to proper communication. Thus, termination of employment by reason of an employee’s refusal to come to work unless she can wear a face veil is not unlawful under the Austrian Equal Treatment Act. Whether this rule also applies to other religious clothing such as headscarves remains to be seen.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an appeal against the finding that a committed Christian teacher who refused to separate from her husband following his conviction for sexual offences would have been dismissed regardless of her faith and therefore such a dismissal was not indirectly discriminatory. The EAT found instead that the Claimant was presented with the choice of having to separate from her husband or be dismissed which subjected people who have a faith-based commitment to marriage to a particular disadvantage.

EU employment protection is usually limited to “employees”, meaning that independent contractors are not covered. However, EU law often leaves it to Member States to determine the meaning of employee. The directives regulating transfers of undertakings, collective redundancies, written working conditions, information and consultation, part-time work, temporary agency workers etc. are all examples of protection covering only ‘employees’ as defined by each Member State.
Consequently, the interpretation of ‘employee’ at the national level determines whether protection in EU law applies. This case report concerns the distinction between an independent contractor and employee. The question was whether a support worker for a child needing extra care and support should be considered as employed by Ålesund municipality. The majority (4-1) found that the support worker was an employee. The case illustrates how the notion of employee in Norwegian law adapts to new ways of organising work and may be of interest in other jurisdictions.

Article 52(1)(a) of the Romanian Labour Code allows an employer to suspend, without pay, an employee under a disciplinary investigation. However, the Constitutional Court has recently ruled Article 52(1)(a) unconstitutional.

An employee who could not prove any harm resulting from an invalid non-compete clause in his employment contract could not obtain damages.

In one of the first high-profile cases under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (i.e. whistleblowing legislation), two employees have successfully secured an injunction in the Circuit Court which prevents their dismissal.

This case confirms that if both the transferor and transferee are affiliated to the same mandatory industry-level pension scheme, following the transfer, the transferee is liable for due but unpaid pension contributions dating from before the date of the transfer.

An employee may bring a claim for invalid termination before the German Labour courts, irrespective of the law governing the employment relationship. In Germany, it is only possible for an employer to dismiss a severely disabled person if the competent state authority grants a permit enabling it to do so. However, this requirement is limited to those with employment agreements under German Law.

The Industrial Disputes Court considered certain substantive and procedural issues in the context of a claim for sexual harassment and victimisation. This case provides a good illustration of the principles the tribunals apply when examining sexual harassment cases and how these are interpreted by Cypriot employment courts.

Fixed-term workers must be paid the same severance compensation as comparable permanent workers.

Successive fixed-term contracts cannot be justified by legal provisions allowing renewal in order to ensure the provision of certain services of a temporary, auxiliary or extraordinary nature when, in reality, there is no obligation to create additional permanent posts in order to bring an end to the structural use of fixed-term work to fill permanent posts.

The penalty for abuse of successive fixed-term contracts must be available to all victims of such abuse, including those employed under administrative, rather than employment, law. National law may not require a victim to bring a new action before a different court in order to determine the penalty.

The fact that veterinary health inspections are non-permanent in nature does not justify successive fixed-term contracts unless the renewal of those contracts is in fact aimed at covering a specific need in the relevant sector, without the underlying reason being budgetary considerations.

Spanish law which reserves participation in evaluation plans for teachers contravenes Directive 1999/70.

The Rome I Regulation only applies to contracts concluded before 17 December 2009 insofar as the contract has undergone major change afterwards. It precludes overriding mandatory provisions other than those of the forum court.

Tax law may, in principle, allow persons aged under 30 to deduct from their taxable income more vocational training expenses than older persons.

Directive 2000/78 does not preclude requiring candidates for the position of police officer to be under 35 years of age. The ECJ distinguishes from its judgment in Vital Pérez.

The definition of ‘worker’ in Directive 2008/104 on temporary agency work includes those who are similar to employees, without having employee status under domestic law.