Discrimination Law in the United Kingdom - Case Study Example

Despite 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 legislation. This is due to the fact that the person might be discriminated on many reasons and sometimes it might be difficult to distinguish between actual discrimination and legitimate actions that an employer might take in the interest of the company. However, one should consider two main types of discrimination- sex and racial discrimination in order to evaluate the efficiency of the current anti-discriminatory legislation in the United Kingdom; moreover, 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 in Western Germany) had an occupational scheme for the workers employed by it. Despite the fact that the 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 full time for 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 were a violation of the article 119 of the EEC treaty (as this method of the payments, in her opinion discriminated women against men, as women were more likely to be employed part-time in order to look after their children).

Bilka refuted these allegations and asserted that there were strong economic grounds for excluding part-time workers from its pension scheme, as the employment of full-time workers lowered ancillary costs and provided more opportunities for the use of staff throughout all opening hours. According to the information provided by the company, it paid 81.3 percent of its pensions to women, whereas women constituted only 72 percent of its workforce, thus in view of Bilka's representatives there was no sex discrimination in the scheme mentioned.

The case was still being considered at the Bundesarbeitsgericht and the court provided the following questions: whether there was indirect discrimination in the scope of article 119 of the treaty and whether the company should modify the scheme so as to accommodate workers who had to look after their families. In view of the representatives of the United Kingdom the scheme mentioned did not violate the article 119 of the treaty as this article did not regulate the issue mentioned, moreover citing the case of Defrenne v Sabena, ECR claimed that article 119 regulated pay discrimination between men and women and thus it could not be applied to other elements of employment.

It also claimed that the 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.