Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:10:46.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grant v. South-West Trains: Some Comparative Observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Nicholas Bamforth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Grant v. South-West Trains, the European Court of Justice ruled that an employer’s refusal to grant an employee concessionary travel for her samesex partner on the company’s trains—when such a concession was readily available to employees with opposite-sex partners—did not constitute sex discrimination contrary to Article 141 of the EC Treaty. From the standpoint of Community law, the Grant decision has been criticised from a number of angles: for example, it has been suggested that the decision contains an ungenerous approach to the Community law principles of respect for fundamental rights and equality, that it is inconsistent with the Court’s earlier decision in P v. S and Cornwall County Council, and that—given the weight attached by the Court of Justice to European Convention on Human Rights case law—it has been undermined by the later decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Smith v. United Kingdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 2 , 1999 , pp. 125 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C–249/96, Grant v. South-West Trains [1998] ECR I-621 (hereafter referred to as Grant).

2 See, for example, Barnard, C., “Some are More Equal than Others: the Decision of the Court of Justice in Grant v. South-West Trains “ in Dashwood, A. & Ward, A. (eds), (1998) 1 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 147 (Hart Publishing, 1999)Google Scholar; Bamforth, N., “Sexual Orientation Discrimination After Grant v. South-West Trains “, (2000) 63 MLR 694 Google Scholar. For a defence of Grant, see Tridimas, T., The General Principles of EC Law (OUP, 1999), 71-3Google Scholar.

3 Case C–13/94 [1996] ECR I–2143.

4 Application nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96; judgment 27th September 1999.

5 (1999) 171 DLR (4th) 577.

6 Wintemute, R., Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: The United States Constitution, the European Convention, and the Canadian Charter (Clarendon Press, 1995), 6–15 Google Scholar.

7 Grant above n 1 at paras. 16–17.

8 Ibid at paras. 26–28.

9 Ibid at para. 42.

10 Grant above n 1 at para. 35.

11 Ibid at para. 31.

12 Ibid at paras. 35–36.

13 (1994) 1 IHRR vol. 1, no. 3, para. 8.7.

14 Grant, above n 1 at para. 46.

15 Ibid at para. 44.

16 Ibid at para.45. The Court claimed that it was reiterating the position it had previously advocated in Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I–1759, paras. 34 & 35.

17 n 1 above, para. 48. See also para. 36. See now the proposed General Framework Directive of Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, 25 November 1999, COM (1999) 565

18 See below text nn 22 to 26.

19 See Westen, P., “The Empty Idea of Equality” (1982) 95 Harvard L Rev 537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Bamforth, N., Sexuality, Morals and Justice (London: Cassell, 1997), 235–258 Google Scholar.

20 More, G., “The Principle of Equal Treatment: from Market Unifier to Fundamental Right?”, in Craig, P. & de, Búrca G. (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp.536-40Google Scholar; de, Búrca G., “The Role of Equality in European Community Law”, in Dashwood, A. & O’Leary, S. (eds), The Principle of Equal Treatment in EC Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), 24–27 Google Scholar.

21 Case 43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena (No.2) [1976] ECR 455, paras. 8–12; Case 149/77 Defrenne v. Sabena (No.3) [1978] ECR 1365, paras. 26–7. This second sense also seems to have used in P v. S above n 3 at para 19; see also A G Tesauro, para 22. See further Craig, P. & de, Búrca G., EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2nd edn., OUP, 1998), 803 Google Scholar; G. More above n 20 at pp 540–44; Barnard C., “P v. S: Kite Flying or a New Constitutional Approach?”, in Dashwood A. & O’Leary S. (eds), above n 20 at pp 63–4; Barnard, C., “The Principle of Equality in the Community Context: P, Grant, Kalanke and Marschall: Four Uneasy Bedfellows?” 57 (1998) CLJ 352, 353–4Google Scholar. Note, however, that Gráinne de Búrca treats this second usage of equality as synonymous with the first, and identifies a rather different second usage: “The Role of Equality in European Community Law”, above n 20 at pp 27–30.

22 Craig P. & de Búrca G., above n 20 at 365–6; de Búrca G. above n 20 pp 30–34; Barnard C., “P v. S”above n 21 at 59, 72–9; “The Principle of Equality”above n 21 at pp 355–6, 361.

23 Above n 3 at para. 19.

24 Above n 3 at A G Tesauro para. 19, emphasis added.

25 Ibid at para. 24.

26 Ibid at para. 20.

27 Ibid at para. 18. See further Tridimas T., “The Application of the Principle of Equality to Community Measures” in Dashwood A. & O’Leary S. (eds), above n 20.

28 Above n 3 at para. 20.

29 Ibid at para. 21.

30 Ibid at para. 21.

31 Ibid at para. 22.

32 Above n 1, A G Elmer at para. 15.

33 Ibid, A G Elmer at paras. 16, 18.

34 Ibid at para. 42.

35 Although this would be insufficient to explain the Court of Justice’s treatment of pregnancy discrimination, in relation to which it appears content to prohibit a form of adverse treatment which seems to stem partly from employers’ stereotyped views concerning the appropriate social rôle of women, i.e. as being primarily responsible for child-care rather than wage-earning: relevant EC cases include Case C–177/88, Dekker v. Stichting [1990] ECR I–3941; Case C–179/88, Handels- og (Hertz) [1989] ECR 3199; and Case C–32/93, Webb v. EMO Air Cargo [1994] ECR I–3567. That these cases employ a social rôle-based approach is best seen by comparing them to the early (now clearly wrong) English decisions in Turley v. Allders Department Stores [1980] ICR 66 and Hayes v. Malleable Working Men’s Club and Institutue [1985] ICR 703.

36 Above n 1, A G Elmer at para. 42.

37 Above n 3 at para. 24.

38 Ibid at para. 24.

39 Ibid at para. 24.

40 See further Craig P. & de Búrca G. above n 21 at 334, 365, 805; More G. above n 20 at 545–8; Barnard C., “The Principle of Equality” above n 21 at 372.

41 Above n 1 at para. 31; see text to above n 11.

42 Above n 3 at para. 23.

43 Case C–70/88, European Parliament v. Council [1990] ECR I–2041, para. 21.

44 Ibid at para. 25.

45 See, generally, Vile, M.J.C., Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (Clarendon Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Marshall, G., Constitutional Theory (Clarendon Press, 1971), ch. VGoogle Scholar; Barendt, E., “Constitutional Law and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme” [1995] PL 357 Google Scholar, “Separation of Powers and Constitutional Government” [1995] PL 599.

46 See, generally, Craig, P., “Once upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalization of EEC Law” (1992) 12 OJLS 452, 463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Case 2/74 Reyners v. Belgium [1974] ECR 631; Case 41/74, Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] ECR 1337; Case 43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena (No.2) above n 21.

47 Above n 5 at para. 6.

48 See, generally, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143; Gold, Marc, “Comment: Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia ” (1989) 34 McGill LJ 1063, 1069Google Scholar.

49 [1995] 2 SCR 513.

50 [1998] 1 SCR 1.

51 Principally Miron v. Trudel [1995] 2 SCR 418; Egan v. Canada, above n 49; Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1999) 170 DLR (4th) 1.

52 Law v. Canada, above n 51 at para. 39.

53 M v. H above n 5 at para. 47; see further Law v. Canada, above n 51 at para. 88.

54 Above n 5 at para. 53.

55 Above n 5 at para. 55.

56 Ibid at paras 58–61.

57 Ibid at para. 62.

58 Ibid at paras 63–4, based on Egan v. Canada above n 49 at paras 5, 89, 175.

59 Above n 5 at para. 65, based on Law v. Canada above n 51 at para. 88.

60 Ibid at paras 68–9, based on Law v. Canada, ibid at para. 63.

61 Ibid at para. 70, based on Law v. Canada, ibid at para. 70.

62 Above n 5 at para. 71, based on Law v. Canada, ibid at para. 72.

63 Above n 5 at para. 72, based on Law v. Canada, ibid at para. 74.

64 Ibid at para. 73.

65 Ibid at para. 74.

66 See further Stychin, C., “Novel Concepts: A Comment on Egan and Nesbit v. The Queen ” 6 (1995) Forum Constitutionnel 101 Google Scholar.

67 Above n 1 at para. 11.

68 Ibid at para. 24.

69 Ibid at paras 29–36.

70 Above n 5 at para. 76.

71 [1986] 1 SCR 103, 136, cited in M v. H, above n 5 at para. 77.

72 Ibid at para. 78, citing Vriend v. Alberta above n 50 at para. 136.

73 Ibid at para. 79.

74 Ibid at paras 78–81.

75 Ibid at para. 82, drawing on Vriend v. Alberta, n 50 above, paras 109–110.

76 Ibid at paras 84–5.

77 Ibid at paras 86–96.

78 Ibid at para. 97.

79 Ibid at para. 100.

80 Ibid at para. 106.

81 Ibid at paras 102–4.

82 [1986] 1 SCR 103, cited in M v. H, above n 5 at paras 84–5.

83 Ibid at para. 108.

84 Ibid at para. 109.

85 Ibid at para. 113.

86 Ibid at para. 114.

87 Ibid at para. 116.

88 Ibid at para. 124.

89 Ibid at para. 125.

90 The key example being Egan v. Canada above n 49.

91 Above n 5 at para. 126.

92 Ibid at para. 128.

93 Ibid at para. 129.

94 Above n 49.

95 Ibid at para. 109.

96 Stychin C. above n 66 at 104, referring to R. v. Oakes above n 71 136 (Dickson CJ).

97 Above n 5 at para. 130.

98 Ibid at para. 132.

99 Above n 49 at para. 182 et seq.

100 Above n 5 at para. 133.

101 Ibid at para. 133.

102 Ibid at para. 134.

103 Above n 5 at paras. 134–5.

104 Ibid at paras 136–147.

105 Ibid at para. 142.

106 Ibid at para. 143.

107 Ibid at para. 144.

108 Ibid at para. 145.

109 Ibid at para. 147.

110 Ibid at para. 145.

111 Case 294/83, Parti écologiste “Les Verts” v. European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, para 23. See further Weatherill, S., Law and Integration in the European Union (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp 189-90Google Scholar; Shapiro M., “The European Court of Justice”, in Craig P. & de Búrca G. (eds.) above n 20.

112 See further above n 46.

113 Craig & de Búrca thus describe dismissal as “a different and more severe form of discrimination”—EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials above n 21 at 366.

114 2nd December 1999; I am grateful to Mr. Justice Edwin Cameron for supplying me with a copy of the transcript.

115 Above n 4.

116 I develop this argument further in “Sexual Orientation Discrimination After Grant v. South-West Trains”, forthcoming, above n 2. The Court of Justice summarised its approach to the Convention in Opinion 2/94, above n 16.