Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to benefits
Hay C-267/12, 12 December 2014
Facts:
Mr Hay worked for one of the French financial institutions. In July 2007, he entered into a registered partnership under the French law (PACS) with a male partner. On that occasion he applied (according to the collective agreement) for days of special leave and a marriage bonus provided by the employer to the employees who got married. The employer refused to grant Mr Hay the benefits in question and based the decision on the relevant provisions of the collective agreement which limited the benefits to marriages only. The issue was whether limitation of the possibility to conclude marriages only for different-sex couples could constitute an appropriate, legitimate and necessary aim to justify an indirect discrimination which is a result of the collective agreement.
Findings of the court:
The Court ruled in favour of Mr Hay and found direct discrimination based on sexual orientation and stated that the fact that the PACS are open for both homosexual and heterosexual couples (unlike in cases of Maruko and Romer) is irrelevant and does not change the nature of the discrimination of homosexual couples who did not have access to full marriage at the time of the proceeding of the case. In terms of the issue of comparability the Court, different from Maruko and Romer, itself assessed this issue and stated that the employees who are entering PACS are in a comparable situation to those who are entering marriage – which is also a civil union.
Implications:
The Court set a high standard of protection against sexual orientation discrimination in employment by putting those homosexual employees - who are entering civil unions and do not have the possibility to conclude full marriage - in a comparable situation with those who have this right.