EU law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

EU law - Essay Example 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: â€Å"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: â€Å"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 discus sion 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