Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning and Infrastructure

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport

Close

The European Court of Justice has recently ruled that remarks made by an Italian lawyer on a radio programme that he would not hire a homosexual person to work in his law firm could amount to unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive (NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI).

NH, a senior lawyer, stated during an interview on an Italian radio programme that he would never recruit a homosexual person to work in his law firm or use their services in his firm. His firm was not actively recruiting at the time. An Italian association for LGBT lawyers brought a claim for discrimination, seeking damages of 10,000 Euros from NH, a press retraction of his statement and an action plan to eliminate discrimination. NH argued that his comments were his personal opinions and had not been made in an employment context. The Supreme Court in Italy referred the case to the ECJ for a ruling on whether a hypothetical statement, with no direct victim, could fall within the Equal Treatment Directive.

In line with the earlier opinion of the Advocate-General, the ECJ ruled that NH’s remarks could fall within the scope of the Directive. A public statement which suggested the existence of a homophobic recruitment policy fell within the prohibition on hindering conditions for access to employment, even if there was no active recruitment exercise at the time. However, the link between the statement and access to employment must not be purely hypothetical. This link would need to be assessed by a national court, taking into account all relevant circumstances including the status of the person making the comments; whether they have any influence on the employer’s recruitment policy; the nature, content and context of the comments; and the extent to which the comments might discourage people belonging to the protected groups from applying for employment.

This case confirms that the term ‘access to employment’ in the Equal Treatment Directive will be broadly interpreted, and that someone who makes homophobic statements on recruitment policies or practices in public may be acting in a discriminatory manner if they have sufficient influence on those policies. The ECJ also confirmed that national legislation can allow associations with a legitimate interest to bring proceedings to enforce the Directive where there is no identifiable victim. In the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission already has the power to take similar enforcement action where it cannot identify an individual who has been affected by discrimination.

Latest articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
20 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JD

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

 

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning and Infrastructure chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Transport chevron

BDB Pitmans is launching Broadfield soon

To read more about our plans, click here.