EN
HR Legal

Double discrimination against part-time carers

logo
Legal news
calendar 27 september 2024
globus Denmark

The European Court of Justice has ruled that part-time workers were unlawfully discriminated against because they had to work the same hours as full-time employees to be entitled to overtime pay. They were also indirectly discriminated against based on their gender, as the majority of them were women.

Two employees were employed part-time as carers at a German dialysis centre. All the employees at the centre were covered by a collective agreement where they received overtime pay for hours worked above the average number of hours for a full-time employee.

The company had more than 5,000 employees, of whom approximately 77% were women. More than half of the employees were employed part-time, and approximately 85% were women. Of all the full-time employees, 68% were women.

One question was whether it was unlawful discrimination that the part-timers were only entitled to overtime pay when they exceeded the hourly rate of a full-time employee. The second question was whether the part-time workers were also unlawfully discriminated against based on their gender because so many of them were women.

A not-so-gorgeous gender discrimination

The European Court concluded that the part-time workers were discriminated against because they had the same threshold for overtime pay as full-time workers. They were also discriminated against based on their gender because the majority of them were women.

The company tried to justify the discrimination by claiming that it wanted to ensure that the part-time employees did not work more than they were hired for and that it would otherwise treat the full-time employees worse than the part-time employees. The European Court of Justice ruled that both reasons were illegal.

IUNO’s opinion

Several collective agreements have the same threshold for overtime pay for both part-time and full-time employees. The judgement shows that an objective reason is required to continue to do so. It is unclear how the ruling will change the Danish labour market, but some collective agreements will likely have to be changed.

IUNO recommends that companies pay attention to whether part-time and full-time employees have different employment conditions and, if so, what the reason is. If a larger group of employees is treated worse than another group, it may be unlawful discrimination.

[European Court of Justice’s judgment of 29 July 2024 in the joined cases C-184/22 and C-185/22]

 

Two employees were employed part-time as carers at a German dialysis centre. All the employees at the centre were covered by a collective agreement where they received overtime pay for hours worked above the average number of hours for a full-time employee.

The company had more than 5,000 employees, of whom approximately 77% were women. More than half of the employees were employed part-time, and approximately 85% were women. Of all the full-time employees, 68% were women.

One question was whether it was unlawful discrimination that the part-timers were only entitled to overtime pay when they exceeded the hourly rate of a full-time employee. The second question was whether the part-time workers were also unlawfully discriminated against based on their gender because so many of them were women.

A not-so-gorgeous gender discrimination

The European Court concluded that the part-time workers were discriminated against because they had the same threshold for overtime pay as full-time workers. They were also discriminated against based on their gender because the majority of them were women.

The company tried to justify the discrimination by claiming that it wanted to ensure that the part-time employees did not work more than they were hired for and that it would otherwise treat the full-time employees worse than the part-time employees. The European Court of Justice ruled that both reasons were illegal.

IUNO’s opinion

Several collective agreements have the same threshold for overtime pay for both part-time and full-time employees. The judgement shows that an objective reason is required to continue to do so. It is unclear how the ruling will change the Danish labour market, but some collective agreements will likely have to be changed.

IUNO recommends that companies pay attention to whether part-time and full-time employees have different employment conditions and, if so, what the reason is. If a larger group of employees is treated worse than another group, it may be unlawful discrimination.

[European Court of Justice’s judgment of 29 July 2024 in the joined cases C-184/22 and C-185/22]

 

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate (on leave)

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Similar

logo
HR Legal

20 November 2024

Fast track work permits for high skilled workers

logo
HR Legal

25 October 2024

The (un)free movement of third-country nationals

logo
HR Legal

25 October 2024

Two cases for the history books

logo
HR Legal

26 September 2024

Diagnosis: no discrimination

logo
HR Legal

26 September 2024

Work permits were required for offshore work on the Danish continental shelf

logo
HR Legal

30 August 2024

Artificial Intelligence at the workplace – new rules from the EU have entered into force

The team

Alexandra

Jensen

Legal advisor

Alma

Winsløw-Lydeking

Junior legal assistant

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Associate

Julie

Meyer

Senior legal assistant

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate (on leave)

Maria

Kjærsgaard Juhl

Legal advisor

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner