This is regardless of whether there is «a genuine, legitimate and
justified occupational requirement».
European Council Directive 2000 / 78 / EC, which established «a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation», sets out in Article 4.2 that organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief, such as «faith» schools, can treat persons differently in recruitment and employment on the grounds of religion or belief where there is «a genuine, legitimate and
justified occupational requirement».
The European Employment Directive only allows employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion where there is «a genuine, legitimate and
justified occupational requirement» (GOR) that the employee shares the faith of the school.
The European Employment Directive only allows employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion where there is «a genuine, legitimate and
justified occupational requirement» (GOR) that the employee shares the faith of the school.
Bearing this in mind, section 60 (5)(a) could and would, if necessary, be construed and applied by a court or tribunal as permitting preferential decisions on grounds of religious belief, only to the extent that such decisions were consistent with genuine, legitimate and
justified occupational requirements.»
Not exact matches
Although Faskens» mandatory retirement policy clearly established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the Supreme Court of Canada could have then examined whether it was
justified for other reasons — either some sort of estoppel given that McCormick had benefited for years from the arrangement of forcing other partners to retire, or statutory exceptions such as a bona fide
occupational requirement.
3) What considerations should be taken into account to ensure that an
occupational requirement is genuine, legitimate and
justified, having regard to the organisation's ethos, in accordance with Article 4 (2) of Directive 2000 / 78 / EC?
[§ 66] Last but not least, an
occupational requirement must be «
justified», in the sense that «the church or organisation imposing the
requirement is obliged to show, in the light of the factual circumstances of the case, that the supposed risk of causing harm to its ethos or to its right of autonomy is probable and substantial, so that imposing such a
requirement is indeed necessary.»
In its answer to the third question, which it examined second, the Court elaborates further on the meaning of «genuine, legitimate and
justified»
occupational requirements in EU law.
This states that differences in treatment based on religion can be
justified where «by reason of the nature of the particular
occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining
occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the
requirement proportionate.»
Under Article 4 (1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive, direct discrimination can be
justified where there is a «genuine and determining
occupational requirement» which is legitimate and proportionate.