Perceived Discrimination in the Workplace - Essay Example

Section/# 2000/78/EC: Repercussions of Two Specific Cases of Perceived Discrimination in the Workplace Exhibited in Waltaria and Superlandia The European Commission Directive 2000/78/EC was enacted on December 2, 2000 with the express aim of combating workplace discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender, religious affiliation, or disability. As such, certain protections therefore exist for individuals that are discriminated against for the reasons that are listed above. As with any laws associated with discrimination, the text of the directive espouses protections for various groups that may become endangered by actions taken both at a private and public level with the intention to curtail the rights and freedoms of the given group. This brief analysis will work to give counsel to the two women, Ame and Bridget, which are presented in the given case assignment as well as provide them with the legal knowledge and constraints that pertain to their individual cases under domestic and European Commission jurisdictions. Likewise, the analysis will attempt to call out specific portions of the European Commission Directive that aptly apply to their given discrimination complaints. Far from being equal, both cases present us with unique constraints and drawbacks which will be elaborated upon and inference/parallels will be drawn to similar cases that have proceeded these and defined a type of precedent for such actions in the not so distant past. Case 1: Ame’s Claim of Age-Discrimination at the State Health Service of Waltaria With respect to discrimination based upon age, 2000/78/EC article 11 is very specific: “Discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation may undermine the achievement of the objectives of the EC Treaty, in particular the attainment of a high level of employment and social protection, raising the standard of living and the quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity, and the free movement of persons” (emphasis provided) (EC 2000/78). As such, the law specifically speaks to the fact that Ame could not justifiably or legally been terminated based upon her age alone. However, there are two complicating factors to this interpretation which will be discussed at greater length; however, it is worth repeating that based upon the information Ame has provided , there is grounds for a court case with respect to this particular termination. Firstly, one must be aware of what lengths the defendant will be likely to go to in order to defend the legality and rightfulness of their action. This is not to discourage Ame from seeking legal action on this matter; instead, it is to make her aware that the defendant will likely attempt to invoke article 25 of 2000/78/EC which states: “The prohibition of age discrimination is an essential part of meeting the aims set out in the Employment Guidelines and encouraging diversity in the workforce. However, differences in treatment in connection with age may be justified under certain circumstances and therefore require specific provisions which may vary in accordance with the situation in Member States. It is therefore essential to distinguish between differences in treatment which are justified, in particular by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and discrimination which must be prohibited” (EC 2000/78). To what degree the defense will attempt to invoke this and to what level they have supporting documentation that shows this was their actual goal is of course unknown; however, Ame should be aware that this is a likely tactic. Secondly, due to the lack of material evidence (Ame only has overheard a discussion by certain elements in management. Her particular case is without strong and relevant proof (i.e. a number of other employees terminated at the same time and of the same demographic group) she will have difficulty providing a solid case within the court system. Although it is clear from her letter that she overheard management speaking as to how they intended to rid the company of all those under the age of 21 due to their supposed reckless nature, it will be nearly impossible to prove this without some type of supporting evidence whether that be in the form of a fellow colleague’s first hand and eye-witness testimony, written documentation, or recording conversation that proves this was indeed an agreed upon objective of management. Case 2: Bridget’s Claim of Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation While Employed Formerly Employed at Smart Party Ltd. in Waltaria In a similar vein to Case Number 1 presented above, Case Number 2 also invokes the 2000/78/EC Directive 11: “Discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation may undermine the achievement of the objectives of the EC Treaty, in particular the attainment of a high level of employment and social protection, raising the standard of living and the quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity, and the free movement of persons” (emphasis provided) (EC 2000/78). With respect to this case involving Bridget in Waltaria, the evidence for discrimination is extant. However, domestically Bridget may not be entitled to bring this before the court system due to the fact that this directive has not been implemented as yet by her home country in which she would first be entitled to seek legal action regarding the matter. According to the European Handbook of Discrimination Law, as well as the evidence she has provided in her brief letter, hers is a case of direct discrimination as a result of her sexual orientation (European Handbook on Discrimination Law, 9). However, due to the fact that this was a European Commission directive and affects all members states and has been signed off by each successive member state, she has the right to bring this to the attention of a European Court and have her grievances pursued from that perspective. Yet, there is a strength that exists in this case as well. This case is further strengthened by the fact that Bridget was able to obtain first hand documentation from her superior that states he “will not tolerate morally aberrant behavior within his organization”. This evidence greatly strengthens the case and provides the needed grounds for legal justification. Obviously this does necessarily speak specifically to her own situation but the threat can easily be interpreted to mean that anything that does not coincide with his limited world view is somehow subject to termination. As such, the force of the case that she could bring before the courts is greatly strengthened. Again, it is worth counseling Bridget as to how the defendant will likely behave when confronted with this matter. It is most likely that the defendant will attempt to categorize the statement in a way as to not be interpreted as threat of termination or of punitive actions based on a belief system. As such, it is of paramount importance that any further evidence be provided that will also call into question and shed light on the fact that management was selectively targeting people who espoused a different worldview. In conclusion, both cases merit the attention of the law. The success of these cases as defined by the likelihood that a court will rule in favor of the discrimination clause 11 of the European Directive on Employment and Discrimination Law is what most differentiates the cases. On the one hand the strongest case is the one in which the member state has not implemented the directive that has most egregiously been violated. And on the other, the case that holds the least pull in a court of law does not have sufficient evidence extant to make a compelling case for remediation. This is a matter of extreme importance due to the fact that in Ame’s case the best solution she might hope to achieve without further documentation, eye-witness testimony, and/or proof that a policy of age discrimination indeed existed would be that her job would be offered to her again. On the grounds of legal advice, it is the belief of this author that such a remediation is not worth the time, energy, and mental anguish that Ame may have to endure in order to win back a job that whose remunerations were likely low to begin with due to her age and overall inexperience. As is the case with Bridget, a different matter entirely exists. If for principle alone, the court case may be worth pursuing even at the regional level if indeed the domestic courts will not take the issue upon themselves. This is for a host of reasons but most notably the fact that Bridget was discriminated upon the fact of her own sexual identity. As such, there may be a cause for her to pursue the case on its merit alone without necessarily seeking to correct the employer or even attempt to regain her job. Regardless, the dynamics of both cases will be severely altered depending as to whether further evidence can be presented and to what extent it is able to be proven that terminations were based on abject violation to Article 11 of the European Council Directive for Equal Treatment of Employment Protection. References Council Directive (EC) 11 Equal Treatment for Employment Protection [2000] OJ L78/EC Council Directive (EC) 25 Equal Treatment for Employment Protection [2000] OJ L78/EC Handbook on European Non-Discrimination Law (1st, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 2010) 9 Read More