Principle (Peter Weiss): A vacancy principle contrary to the age discrimination prohibition when a "young" applicants a "young" candidate is being sought.
born in 1958, plaintiff is a qualified lawyer. He applied in 2007 to an ad delivered by the defendant's advertisement in a legal journal. The defendant was looking for their legal department "Initially limited to one year (n) young (s) involved (n) A jurist / qualified lawyers. The applicant received a rejection, without having been invited for an interview. Set was a 33-year lawyer. The applicant has asked the defendant for an unlawful discrimination because of his age, compensation in the amount of EUR 25,000.00 and damages amounting an annual salary.
The Labour Court has sentenced the defendant to pay a compensation of one month's salary, and dismissed the action for the rest. That court rejected the arguments of the plaintiff and the cross-appeal by the defendant. The Senate has confirmed the ruling of the Labour Court. The vacancy of the defendants violated § 11 of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), which prohibits that a unit in violation of the prohibition of discrimination § 7 AGG is announced. Thereafter, agencies and others. "Age-neutral" can compete, if not justify meaning. § 10 AGG is present for different treatment on grounds of age. The improper vacancy is an index that proves that the applicant was not hired because of his age. Since the defendant could not demonstrate that no breach been submitted to the prohibition of discrimination has a right to compensation, the plaintiff to. The amount fixed by the Regional Labor Court in revision is not legally objectionable manner. Since the applicant has not demonstrated and proved that he had been recruited at a non-discriminatory selection of the defendant, he is the alleged claim for damages equal to one year's salary (not to the Federal Labour Court, decision of 19 August 2010 -. 8 AZR 530/09 )
Source: Federal Labour Court Press Release No. 64/10
0 comments:
Post a Comment