Court Appeal and European Court of Justice
In light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in this case, the matter was remitted to the employment tribunal to determine whether the appellant was a worker within the meaning of Art.141 EC, whether the relevant pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman, and whether, if the scheme did have an adverse impact, it was justified.
The appellant employee (W) appealed against a decision dismissing her complaints alleging sex discrimination against the first and second respondents, and a complaint against the third respondent for having denied her access to the teacher's superannuation scheme. W's appeal had been stayed ([2001] EWCA Civ 529, (2001) ICR 1189), pending a reference to the European Court of Justice (C256/01 Allonby). Accordingly, in light of the ECJ's ruling, the court had to deal with consequential matters and make provisions for the determination of outstanding issues. Those issues had been: (a) whether W had been a worker within the meaning of Treaty of Rome, Art.141, as ruled by the ECJ; (b) if W had been a worker, whether the relevant pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman; and (c) if the scheme did have an adverse impact, whether it had been justified.
LTL 25/11/2004 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
C256/01 Allonby
EMPLOYMENT, DISCRIMINATION, EUROPEAN UNION, EDUCATION, PENSIONS
