Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1994.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: House of Lords – United Kingdom.
Equal treatment for men and women – Directive 76/207/EEC – Replacement of an employee on maternity leave – Replacement found to be pregnant – Dismissal.
Case C-32/93.
Legal Issues in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd
The central legal issue in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd concerned whether the dismissal of a female employee due to her pregnancy constituted sex discrimination under Council Directive 76/207/EEC.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) addressed the legality of terminating an employee’s contract when her pregnancy prevents her from fulfilling the role for which she was hired, particularly in circumstances where she was recruited to replace another employee on maternity leave.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) raised important questions about the interpretation of equal treatment principles in the context of employment and pregnancy.
Material Facts in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd
Mrs. Webb was hired by EMO Air Cargo to replace an employee, Mrs. Stewart, who was going on maternity leave.
Mrs. Webb was unaware she was pregnant at the time of her recruitment. Within weeks of starting her job, she discovered her pregnancy and informed her employer.
Subsequently, EMO decided to dismiss Mrs. Webb, citing her inability to fulfil her primary role – covering for Mrs. Stewart during her maternity leave.
Mrs. Webb then brought proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, alleging direct sex discrimination and, alternatively, indirect discrimination.
The Industrial Tribunal dismissed her action, finding that the primary reason for her dismissal was her anticipated inability to perform the job during Mrs. Stewart’s maternity leave.
Appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful, leading to an appeal to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 76/207/EEC in relation to Mrs. Webb’s dismissal.
Judgment in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd
The CJEU ruled that Article 2(1) read with Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC precludes the dismissal of an employee recruited for an indefinite period to replace another employee during maternity leave, who herself becomes pregnant shortly after recruitment.
The Court held in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd that dismissing an employee because of her pregnancy constituted direct discrimination on grounds of sex.
The Court emphasised that pregnancy is not comparable to a pathological condition or unavailability for non-medical reasons, which could justify dismissal without sex discrimination.
The ruling underscored that the protection afforded to women during pregnancy and after childbirth by Community law cannot depend on whether their presence at work is essential to the functioning of the business. Such an interpretation would render the protective provisions of the directive ineffective.
The Reason for the Decision in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd
The Court’s decision was grounded in the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Directive 76/207/EEC. The ruling focused on the specific protection accorded to pregnant workers under the directive.
The Court stated that the dismissal of a female worker due to pregnancy amounts to direct sex discrimination.
This interpretation was consistent with prior judgments (such as the Hertz judgment and Habermann-Beltermann), which established that pregnancy-related dismissal constitutes sex discrimination.
The Court rejected the comparison between a woman’s incapacity due to pregnancy and a man’s incapacity for medical or other reasons.
It asserted that pregnancy, unlike illness or other reasons for unavailability, cannot justify dismissal without constituting sex discrimination.
The Court emphasised the importance of protecting a woman’s biological condition during and after pregnancy and the special relationship between a woman and her child following pregnancy and childbirth.
Furthermore, the Court noted the harmful effects that the risk of dismissal could have on pregnant women, including the serious risk of prompting voluntary termination of pregnancy.
This perspective aligned with the objectives of Council Directive 92/85/EEC, which provided special protection to women by prohibiting dismissal during pregnancy and maternity leave.
The Court also considered the circumstances of Mrs. Webb’s recruitment and found that her dismissal could not be justified by her temporary inability to perform the work for which she was engaged.
It held that such a dismissal would undermine the directive’s provisions intended to protect pregnant workers.
The decision in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd emphasised that equal treatment and non-discrimination principles under Community law must not be circumvented by employers’ operational requirements.
The Court clarified that the protection afforded to pregnant employees under EU law is not conditional on their role’s indispensability to the employer’s business.
Conclusion
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd is a landmark case in European employment law, particularly concerning the rights of pregnant workers.
The CJEU’s ruling affirmed that dismissing an employee because of pregnancy constitutes direct sex discrimination under Directive 76/207/EEC.
The judgment in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) highlights the EU’s commitment to gender equality in the workplace and the specific protections accorded to pregnant employees.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd underscores the importance of interpreting national employment laws in a manner consistent with EU directives, ensuring the protection of pregnant workers from discriminatory practices.
This case has had significant implications for employment practices across the EU, reinforcing the principle that pregnancy-related dismissals are contrary to the fundamental rights of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of sex.
The ruling in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd established a clear precedent, setting a high standard for employers in terms of their obligations towards pregnant employees.
It emphasised that employers cannot justify dismissal based on operational requirements if it results in discrimination against pregnant workers.
This decision has strengthened the legal framework protecting women in the workforce, particularly in situations involving pregnancy and maternity, ensuring that their employment rights are not compromised due to their biological condition.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd serves as a crucial reference for interpreting and enforcing laws related to sex discrimination, equal treatment, and the rights of pregnant workers, thereby contributing significantly to the development of a more inclusive and equitable work environment in the EU.
