In 2019, discrimination is rarely overt or deliberate.  As a society we have come a long way from the ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ signs of decades past.  But conscious intent is not necessary for unlawful discrimination to occur.  We all have unconscious biases based on stereotypes and prejudices.  We may not always realise our biases, but we do need to be aware that biases related to protected characteristics such as age, sex and gender can give rise to unlawful treatment.

In the UK, under the Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination occurs where “because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”.  In a discrimination claim, it falls to the Tribunal to consider the reason why the claimant was treated less favourably.  In other words, what was the conscious or subconscious reason for the treatment?  This requires the Tribunal to undertake

The German Federal Labor Court (BAG) recently held, that employers are not prevented from using grounds which failed to justify a termination in order to file for a subsidiary motion to end employment.

Under German dismissal law, employees can only be dismissed on socially justified grounds. If an employee brings a claim relating to their dismissal and the Court finds that the employer cannot demonstrate a satisfactory socially justified reason, the dismissal will be invalid meaning the employer will have to re-employ them and they will be awarded back pay. However German dismissal law also provides for a remedy to allow employers to file a motion to end employment with employees during wrongful dismissal proceedings. Where the courts find that employment was not effectively terminated by the dismissal, but the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue employing the plaintiff, the Court shall upon the employer’s motion dissolve the employment

Forty-five years after the law “for professional equality,” the wage gap between women and men persists. In order to overcome this, the law “for the freedom to choose one’s professional future” imposes new measures on companies. The French law “for the freedom to choose one’s professional future” was definitively adopted on 1 August 2018 by the French Parliament and approved on 4 September by the Constitutional Council (Decision No. 2018-769 DC of 4 September 2018); it was published in the Journal Officiel on 6 September 2018.

The overriding principle is that all employers must have as an objective the removal of the pay gap between women and men (new article L. 1142-7 of the Labor Code). Further, while there is no penalty for non-compliance with this principle in itself, certain provisions of the law are mandatory and subject to sanctions if not respected.

Of particular note are provisions that apply

The French law “for the freedom to choose one’s professional future” definitively adopted on 1 August 2018 by the French Parliament and approved on 4 September by the Constitutional Council (Decision No. 2018-769 DC of 4 September 2018) was published in the Journal Officiel on 6 September 2018. The law strengthens the fight against sexual harassment and sexist behavior in companies.

Under the new law, by 1 January 2019 at the latest, certain employers will be required to take measures to combat sexual harassment and sexist behavior in the workplace:

• The obligation to appoint the following points of contact:

(i) A point of contact in companies with at least 250 employees, responsible for guiding, informing and supporting employees in the fight against sexual harassment and sexist behavior (new article L. 1153-5-1 of the French Labor Code). The objective is to enable victims of such acts to identify a

Derived from EU Directive 2001/23/EG, the German law on Transfer of Business (“TUPE”) protects employees in a business transfer situation. As a starting point, TUPE transfers the employment of affected employees from one employer to another on their existing terms and conditions. However, a potential  impact of recent decisions by the German Federal Labor Court on TUPE is that, even many years after restructurings and – supposedly – concluded transfers of business transactions, employees may claim ongoing employment with their original employer (”transferor”) if it is held that no transfer of business actually occurred.

The case law in this area has continued to develop based on rulings by the Federal Labor Court/ (“BAG”). Recently the BAG rendered two decisions (BAGE 8 AZR 265/15 and BAGE 8 AZR 309/16) with far reaching consequences for companies doing business in Germany.

How long after a “transfer” will the Courts intervene?

In the most

Welcome to the third post in our ‘GDPR HR Issues’ blog series. Drawing on key insights from across Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s global Employment & Labor team, the series highlights key GDPR issues affecting employers.

This blog focuses on new obligations imposed by the GDPR to notify the relevant supervisory data protection authority (“DPA”) and those individuals whose data have been violated, when an employer becomes aware of a violation affecting personal data that it processes (a “data breach”).

If an employer discovers that the personal data it holds concerning its employees is, for example, accidentally accessed by a third party without authorization, what practical steps should it take to manage such a breach?

A personal data breach occurs when a breach of security affects the personal data’s confidentiality (unauthorized disclosure or access to the data), integrity (data is involuntarily or unlawfully modified

The “Große Koalition” (the Grand Coalition) recently concluded a variety of legislative projects which will result in additional headaches, administrative hurdles, thresholds and new deadlines for HR professionals and employment experts. Traditionally, labor and employment laws in Germany have tended to be employee friendly. Now it appears that the few remaining employer-friendly laws enacted in the early 1980s to improve overall employment in Germany will also be reversed.

One area subject to challenge is time restricted employment. Until now, German employers could use time restricted employment even without substantive reasons for up to two years. This concept, known by the somewhat technical German term “sachgrundlose Befristung”, became extremely popular due to wide coverage which extended outside the legal press.

Federal Constitutional Court narrows use of time restricted employment contract

In June 2018, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany (“Bundesverfassungsgericht”) overruled a 2011 judgment of the Federal Labor Court (“Bundesarbeitsgericht”). The

Under German law, employees generally apply for holiday during the holiday year so that their claims can be fulfilled. If they fail to do so, their entitlement lapses at the end of the year. When employees leave their firms, they cannot claim compensation for unused holiday. A recent Advocate-General’s opinion has now thrown doubt on this practice.

This area has been under scrutiny, as several Regional Labour Courts have granted employee claims for compensation in the form of a substitute holiday (or compensation) specifically in cases where the employee has not applied for holiday during the year. Up to now, the question of whether the employee is also entitled to compensation after failing to submit the appropriate holiday request was unresolved because the German Federal Holiday Act does not contain a corresponding provision.

Two cases on this issue presented by the Federal Labour Court and by the Higher Administrative Court

Welcome to the 2nd post in our ‘GDPR HR Issues’ blog series. Drawing on key insights from across Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s global Employment & Labor team, the series highlights key GDPR issues affecting employers.

With the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) coming into effect today, employers with EU-based staff need to ensure that they properly comply with the new regime. Failure to do so can result in significant fines and disruption to your business.

This blog focuses on the changes made by GDPR to a fundamental data protection right – an employee’s right to find out what information their employer holds on them by making a data subject access request (‘DSAR’).

There are few clauses in employment contracts more heavily debated than Non-Competition Clauses (post-contractual non-competes). While employers tend to include them rather easily in order to protect company secrets beyond the term of an employment, strict and mandatory provisions under German law differ from those found in most other jurisdictions. For post-contractual non-competes to be enforceable, an entire catalogue of requirements must be met, including a mandatory compensation payment of at least 50% of the employee`s total earnings for the maximum term of two years – to name just the two most prominent requirements. Because of the potential financial impact on employers, it is highly advisable to carefully consider whether post-contractual non-competes are necessary at all and, if so, whether they will be enforceable.

Two recent decisions in January 2018 by the Federal Labor Court/ BAG (10 AZR 392/179) and by the Appeals Court/ LAG Düsseldorf (Az: 7 Sa 185/17)