This article examines the Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH [2009] case, a key study for law students on EU law’s impact on employment rights concerning pregnancy and discrimination.

  • In the case of Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH [2009] C-246/09, The interpretation of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of October 19, 1992, on the implementation of measures to stimulate improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant employees, workers who have just given birth, or workers who are nursing was the key legal concept at issue.
  • The Directive shall be construed to indicate that a dismissal in situations where a pregnant worker, a worker who has just given birth, or a worker who is nursing is treated less favourably than another worker because of her pregnancy, or the delivery is seen as being on the basis of sex.

Facts of the Case Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service

  • Susanne Bulicke, a former employee of Deutsche Büro Service GmbH who was let go while on maternity leave, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, claiming that her termination was discriminatory.
  • For a preliminary judgement on the Directive’s interpretation, the German courts submitted the issue to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Issues in Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH [2009] C-246/09

  • The primary question in the case was whether the Directive should be interpreted to mean that a dismissal in situations where a pregnant worker, a worker who has just given birth, or a worker who is nursing is treated less favourably than another worker because of her pregnancy or the birth is regarded as being on the basis of sex.

Held by Court (European Court of Justice)

  • The European Court of Justice determined that the Directive must be interpreted to mean that a dismissal in situations where a pregnant worker, a worker who has just given birth, or a worker who is nursing is treated less favourably than another worker because of her pregnancy or the birth is regarded as being on the basis of sex.

Judge’s Ruling

  • The ECJ determined that the Directive’s goal is to guarantee that employees who are pregnant, recently gave birth, or who are nursing are protected from discrimination at work. The Directive must be applied in a way that safeguards those employees from unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy, childbirth, or nursing.
  • The ECJ ruled that a dismissal in which a worker who is pregnant, has just given birth, or is nursing is handled less favourably than another worker because of her pregnancy or the delivery is considered to be on the basis of sex.
  • The employer must show that the dismissal was not motivated by the pregnancy, birth, or nursing but rather by other, more objective reasons. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the Directive’s protection against workplace discrimination must be effective and that the principle of equal treatment must be fully implemented.

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH [2009] case is pivotal in understanding the EU’s stance on discrimination against pregnant workers, with significant implications:

  1. Council Directive 92/85/EEC: This case directly interprets this directive, emphasizing enhanced protections for pregnant workers, aligning with EU objectives to combat sex discrimination and promote workplace equality.
  2. Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1994]: The ECJ in Webb had earlier set precedents on pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination, which Bulicke reinforces by emphasizing the protective measures employers must undertake.
  3. Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus [1990]: Similar to Dekker, where the ECJ ruled that refusal to employ a woman because she was pregnant constituted sex discrimination, Bulicke affirms this principle, focusing on dismissal rather than hiring.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

How do national courts ensure compliance with the ECJ’s interpretation in their domestic laws?

National courts ensure compliance with the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) interpretations by incorporating ECJ decisions into their judgment processes. In the UK, for instance, courts are guided by the Equality Act 2010, which harmonizes with EU directives, including those on pregnancy and discrimination. A practical example is seen in Eversheds Legal Services Ltd v de Belin [2011], where the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the principles of non-discrimination in line with EU jurisprudence, ensuring that domestic laws reflect ECJ standards.

What impact has this ruling had on employer practices across the EU?

The impact of Bulicke on employer practices across the EU has been significant, encouraging businesses to adopt more robust policies protecting pregnant workers. Employers must now ensure that their employment practices, such as dismissal and hiring, comply with the stringent EU regulations against discrimination. The case has led to a reevaluation of employment contracts and training programs to increase awareness and compliance, similar to adjustments seen after Coleman v Attridge Law [2008], which expanded discrimination protections related to disability.

Are there exceptions or limitations to this protection in specific employment sectors?

Yes, while the protections for pregnant workers are comprehensive, there are nuanced exceptions in specific sectors, particularly those involving safety-sensitive roles. For instance, if a job poses potential harm to the health of the pregnant worker or the fetus, employers may have legal grounds to alter their roles or offer alternative duties, adhering to health and safety regulations. However, any such measures must be strictly justified on health and safety grounds and comply with the overarching principles of non-discrimination as reaffirmed in ECJ case law and local statutes like the UK’s Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.