Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:50:25.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrimination in Individual-Related Employment – A View from Europe and Germany to Canada, analysing the Requirements and the Background of the European Anti-Discrimination Directives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Susanne Hoentzsch

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sometimes it seems that the EC directives could be a framework for the Canadian anti-discrimination system, too. They open ways to create procedures which are working for a long time in Canada. This does not mean this can be adopted in EC member states because there are too many peculiarities amongst domestic legislation. The problem seems to combine the directives, formed by influence from the North American legislation,130 with the European understanding of law. Especially in Germany, where employees are well protected by the law, the well-balanced system of rights is in danger. This danger does not seem to be banished by the new AGG which adopted many regulations of the directives without giving answers to questions of its implementation. But seeing the practice in other countries could bring thought-provoking impulses for the embodiment and the use of anti-discrimination law.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 10 , 01 October 2006 , pp. 795 - 818
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I, 1987 (2006).Google Scholar

2 See e.g. Rainer Nickel, Widening the Scope: Anti-Discrimination Law, Social Equality, and the Right to Equal Treatment in: Annual of German and European Law Vol. 1, 353 (Russell Miller/Peer Zumbansen eds. 2003); Eduard Picker, Anti-discrimination as a Program of Private law?, 7 German Law Journal 771 (2003), available at: htp://www.germanlawjournal.com; Gregor Thüsing, Following the U.S. Example: European Employment Discrimination Law and the Impact of Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, 19 The international journal of comparative labour law and industrial relations 187 (2003); Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus, Europäische Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien und ihr Einfluss auf das deutsche Arbeitsrecht, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2672 (2001).Google Scholar

3 Draft bill of 16 December 2004, printed matter of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag), legislative period 15, no. 4538 (Bundestagsdrucksache 15/4538). On 17 June 2005 the Bundestag adopted the bill, but on 8 July 2005 the Bundesrat (Federal Council) objected and demanded that the committee for joint consideration of bills be convened (see Art. 77 para. 2 sent. 1 Basic Law). Because the Bundestag was elected early in autumn 2005 instead of 2006, the legislative procedure was finished without any result. This is the effect of the so-called Diskontinuität of the Bundestag.Google Scholar

4 See e.g. comments of the Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände, available at http://www.bda-online.de/www/bdaonline.nsf/id/B770DB33A0DE40FBC1256DE70069F41B (visited on 28 August 2006); Arbeitgeber fordern weitere Überarbeitung des geänderten Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 293 (2005).Google Scholar

5 Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins e.V. durch die DAV-Ausschüsse Arbeitsrecht und Zivilrecht zu dem Regierungsentwurf eines Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, Heft 12, VII (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus, Berliner Etikettenschwindel: der neue Gesetzentwurf zur Umsetzung der Europäischen Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien, Der Betriebs-Berater 61, Heft 20, I (2006), Gaul, Björn/Naumann, Eva, Entwurf des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Der Arbeitsrechtsberater 176 (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar

6 Treaty on European Union, consolidated version, Official Journal of the European Communities 2002, C 325, 24/12/2004, p. 5; Treaty establishing the European Community, consolidated version Official Journal of the European Communities 2002, C 325, 24/12/2004, p. 33.Google Scholar

7 Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975, Official Journal L 045, 19/02/1975, p. 19.Google Scholar

8 Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976, Official Journal L 039, 14/02/1976, p. 40.Google Scholar

9 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992, Official Journal L 348, 28/11/1992, p. 1.Google Scholar

10 Art. 10 Directive 92/85/EEC.Google Scholar

11 A fifth anti-discrimination directive was passed in 2004, see Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004, Official Journal of the European Union L 373, 21/12/2004, p. 37. This directive is, however, without influence on the field of labour law. It concerns the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services.Google Scholar

12 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, Official Journal L 180, 19/07/2000, p. 26.Google Scholar

13 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000, p. 16.Google Scholar

14 Art. 1 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar

15 Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, Official Journal of the European Communities L 269, 05/10/2002, p. 15 amends the Directive 76/207/EEC mentioned before.Google Scholar

16 Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997, Official Journal L 14, 20/01/1998, p. 6. The Directive 98/52/EC (Council Directive 98/52/EC of 13 July 1998, Official Journal L 2005, 22/07/1998, p. 66) only extends the Directive 97/80/EC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Google Scholar

17 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, publication in Official Journal pending, the legislation procedure is available at: http://europa.eu.int/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=190518 (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar

18 Directive 2000/43/EC (race/ethnic origin); Directive 2000/78/EC (religion or belief/ disability/ age/ sexual orientation); Directive 2002/73/EC (sex).Google Scholar

19 § 1 AGG.Google Scholar

20 Art. 2 Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

21 Art. 3 Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar

22 This must not be mixed with the question if the directives could have a direct effect after the time lapse for the implementation under special circumstances.Google Scholar

23 Art. 3 Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

24 See e.g. § 2 AGG.Google Scholar

25 See e.g. Wisskirchen, Gerlind, Der Umgang mit dem Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Ein “Kochrezept” für Arbeitgeber, Der Betrieb 1491 (2006), Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar

26 Art. 4 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 4 para. 1 Directive 2000/73/EC; art. 2 para. 6 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

27 Art. 4 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 4 para. 1 Directive 2000/73/EC; art. 2 para. 6 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

28 § 8 para. 1 AGG.Google Scholar

29 Art. 5 Directive 2000/43/EC and art. 7 Directive 2000/78/EC, but not in Directive 2002/73/EC. Now Art. 3 Directive 2006/54/EC rules positive action. For further information see: Daniela Caruso, Limits of the Classic Method: Positive Action in the European Union After the New Equality Directives, 44 Harvard International Law Journal 331 (2003).Google Scholar

30 § 5 AGG.Google Scholar

31 Art. 5 Directive 2000/43/EC and art. 7 Directive 2000/78/EC, Georg Annuß, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar

32 Art. 4 para. 2 Directive 2000/78/EC, § 9 AGG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Art. 6 Directive 2000/78/EC, § 10 AGG.Google Scholar

34 § 10 sentence 3 no. 5 AGG.Google Scholar

35 Art. 9 Directive 2000/78/EC; art. 7 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 6 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

36 Art. 9 and art. 11 Directive 2000/78/EC; art. 7 and 9 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 6 and 7 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

37 § 27 para. 1 no. 3 AGG, see also the competence ruled in § 28 para. 1 AGG for this facultative task.Google Scholar

38 § 21 para. 5 AGG. Take note, in consideration of the wording this only aims for compensation based upon § 15 paras. 1, 2 AGG.Google Scholar

39 Art. 9 para. 3 Directive 2000/78/EC; art. 7 para. 3 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 6 para. 4 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

40 See e.g. Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins e.V. durch die DAV-Ausschüsse Arbeitsrecht und Zivilrecht zu dem Regierungsentwurf eines Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, Heft 12, VII (2006).Google Scholar

41 § 2 para. 4 AGG.Google Scholar

42 In this way Wisskirchen, Gerlind, Der Umgang mit dem Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Ein “Kochrezept” für Arbeitgeber, Der Betrieb 1491 (2006), Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar

43 See Jobst-Hubertus Bauer in: Jobst-Hubertus Bauer/Gregor Thüsing/Achim Schunder, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006) who thinks a discriminatory dismissal is covered by the established dismissal protection law. On the other side is the opinion of Gregor Thüsing who speaks about a failure of this provision in the same essay.Google Scholar

44 Art. 8 para. 1 Directive 2000/43/EC; art. 10 para. 1 Directive 2000/78/EC. Directive 2002/73/EC does not rule the burden of proof because in the case of discrimination based on sex Art. 4 Directive 97/80/EC was applicable.Google Scholar

45 § 22 AGG rules verbatim: “Wenn im Streitfall die eine Partei Indizien beweist, die eine Benachteiligung wegen eines in § 1 genannten Grundes vermuten lassen, trägt die andere Partei die Beweislast dafür, dass kein Verstoß gegen die Bestimmungen zum Schutz vor Benachteiligung vorgelegen hat.” Google Scholar

46 See Gregor Thüsing in: Jobst-Hubertus Bauer/Gregor Thüsing/Achim Schunder, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar

47 Information of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, Heft 10, IX (2006), see also Federal Labour Court, Decision of 5 February 2004 in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2112 (2004) for an interpretation of § 611 a para. 1 sentence 3 German Civil Code.Google Scholar

48 See Boesche, Katharina Vera, Beweislast im Regierungsentwurf eines Antidiskriminierungsgesetzes, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 264, 265 (2005) with her proposal for a formulation.Google Scholar

49 Art. 15 Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 17 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar

50 Art. 6 para. 2 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

51 § 15 paras. 1, 2 AGG.Google Scholar

52 § 15 para. 1 sentence 2. Take note, such a statement is missing in § 15 para. 2 AGG (non financial loss).Google Scholar

53 Gregor Thüsing in: Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006) with clue to the decision of the European Court of Justice of 22 April 1997, C-180/95 in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 645 (1997).Google Scholar

54 § 13 AGG.Google Scholar

55 § 14 AGG.Google Scholar

56 Art. 13 Directive 2000/43/EC, art. 8a Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

57 Art. 25 AGG.Google Scholar

58 S.C. 1960, c.44.Google Scholar

59 Act to prevent the Publication of Discriminatory Matter Referring to Race or Creed, S.O. 1944, c. 51.Google Scholar

60 For a first overview of the Canadian federal system see Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada 103 (2002 student ed.).Google Scholar

61 Law Society British Columbia v. Andrews (1989) 1 S.C.R. 143, 144.Google Scholar

62 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.Google Scholar

63 Canadian Human Rights Act (Act) R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.Google Scholar

64 Human Rights Code Ontario (Ontario Code) R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19.Google Scholar

65 The scope of industries within federal jurisdiction is defined by the Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 2.Google Scholar

66 Act, s. 11.Google Scholar

67 Employment Standards Act S.O. 2000, c. 41, s. 42.Google Scholar

68 Act, s. 11 paras. 1 - 3.Google Scholar

69 Pay Equity Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7.Google Scholar

70 Pay Equity Act, s. 3 para.1.Google Scholar

71 Employment Equity Act S.C. 1995, c. 44.Google Scholar

72 Echlin, Randall Scott/Thomlinson, Christine M., For Better or For Worse – a Practical Guide to Canadian Employment Law 141 (2nd ed. 2004); Carol Agocs, Canada's employment equity legislation and policy, 1987–2000 – The gap between policy and practice, 23 International Journal of Manpower 256 (2002).Google Scholar

73 Employment Equity Act, s. 15.Google Scholar

74 Employment Equity Act, s. 5 para. a.Google Scholar

75 Act, s. 3 para. 1.Google Scholar

76 Ontario Code, s. 5 para. 1, s. 10 para. 2.Google Scholar

77 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms Quebec R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 10.Google Scholar

78 See e.g. Human Rights Code Manitoba C.C.S.M., c. H175, s. 9 para. 2j, Human Rights Act Nova Scotia R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214, s. 5 para. 1t, Human Rights Act Prince Edward Island R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c.H-12, s. 2 para. 1d.Google Scholar

79 See e.g. Human Rights Code British Columbia RSBC 1996, c. 210, s. 11, Human Rights Code Newfoundland and Labrador RSNL 1990, c. H-14, s. 9 para. 1a, Human Rights Act Yukon R.S.Y. 2002, c. 116, s. 7 para. j.Google Scholar

80 Act, s. 7, Ontario Code, s. 9, 23 para. 1.Google Scholar

81 Act, s. 7.Google Scholar

82 Act, s. 8, Ontario Code, s. 23 paras. 2, 3.Google Scholar

83 Act, s. 10.Google Scholar

84 Act, s. 14.1, Ontario Code, s. 8.Google Scholar

85 Act, s. 14 para. 2, Ontario Code, s. 7 para. 2, Ontario Human Rights Commission, publications: Policy on Sexual Harassment & Inappropriate Gender Related Comments & Conduct, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/publications/sexual-harassment-policy.shtml (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar

86 Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 247.1 until s. 247.4.Google Scholar

87 McAvinn v. Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd. (2002) 41 C.H.R.R. D/388.Google Scholar

88 Haig v. Canada (1991) 16 C.H.R.R. D/224.Google Scholar

89 Haig v. Canada (1992) 16 C.H.R.R. D/226.Google Scholar

90 Act, s. 15 paras. 1, 2, Ontario Code, s. 24 paras. 1, 2.Google Scholar

91 Act, s. 15 paras. 2, 3, Ontario Code, s. 11 paras. 2, 3, see Central Alberta Diary Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Comission) (1990) 12 C.H.R.R. D/417, Canadian Human Rights Commission, publication: Duty to Accommodate Fact Sheet, available at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/preventing_discrimination/duty_obligation-en.asp (visited 28 August 2006).Google Scholar

92 British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.E.U. (1999), 176 D.L.R. (4th) 1, see also British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (2000), 181 D.L.R. (4th) 385.Google Scholar

93 Black v. Gaines Pet Foods (1993), 28 C.H.R.R. D/256; see also the decision of the Ontario Board of Inquiry ([1992] 17 C.H.R.R. D/150) which was reversed by the Ontario Court of Justice.Google Scholar

94 Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway (1985) 7 C.H.R.R. D/3093. The first decision of the tribunal ([1981] 2 C.H.R.R. D/546) was reversed by the decision of the Federal Court of Canada ([1983] 4 C.H.R.R. D/1404), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.Google Scholar

95 Chambly (Commission scolaire regionale) v. Bergevin (1994) 22 C.H.R.R. D/1 (S.C.C.), see also Toronto District School Board v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (2003) L.V.I. 3371–1.Google Scholar

96 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Greyhound Lines of Canada Ltd. (1987) 8 C.H.R.R. D/4184.Google Scholar

97 Jardine v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (1995) C.R.H.D. No. 6.Google Scholar

98 Ontario Code, s. 24 para 1a.Google Scholar

99 Act, s. 16 para. 1, Ontario Code, s. 14 para. 1.Google Scholar

100 Ontario Code s. 24 para. 1.Google Scholar

101 Act, s. 40, Ontario Code s. 32.Google Scholar

102 Ontario Code, s. 34 para. 1d.Google Scholar

103 Act, s. 41 para. 1e.Google Scholar

104 Act, ss. 43–46, Ontario Code, ss. 33–34, see also: Canadian Human Rights Commission, publications: The Complaint Process, available at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/the_complaint-en.asp; Ontario Human Rights Commission, publications: If you Have a Human Rights Complaint: A Complainant's Guide, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/publications/complainants-guide.shtml; If you Receive a Human Rights Complaint: A Respondent's Guide, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/publications/respondents-guide.shtml (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar

105 Act, ss. 47–48, Ontario Code, s. 36–37, see also publications at supra note 96. Take note that there are discussions about strengthening this system at the moment because the complaint process takes a long time and costs much money.Google Scholar

106 S.O. 2000, c. 41.Google Scholar

107 R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2.Google Scholar

108 See Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Tribunal Rules and Procedures: What Happens Next? A Guide to the Tribunal Process, available at http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/about/download/lay_guide-e.htm (visited on 28 August 2006).Google Scholar

109 Act, s. 53, Ontario Code, s. 41.Google Scholar

110 Act, s. 60, Ontario Code, s. 44.Google Scholar

111 Act, ss. 27 para. 1, 40 para. 1.Google Scholar

112 Ontario Code, s. 32 para. 1.Google Scholar

113 Pay Equity Act, ss. 22–26.Google Scholar

114 Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006).Google Scholar

115 Ulrich Preis in: Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht, § 611 Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) annotation 334, 341, 342 (Dieterich et al. eds. 2006); Federal Labour Court, Decision of 20 May 1999, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3653 (1999).Google Scholar

116 But it is stated explicitly in art. 2 para. 1 Directive 76/207/EEC and so in art. 1 para. 1 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

117 § 10 sentence 3 no. 6 AGG. See also Gaul, Björn/Naumann, Eva, Entwurf des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes, Der Arbeitsrechtsberater 176 (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006), Annuß, Georg, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz im Arbeitsrecht, Der Betriebs-Berater 1629 (2006) who criticise this provision with regard to the exclusion of the AGG from dismissals.Google Scholar

118 Reiner Ascheid in: Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht, § 1 KSchG (Kündigungsschutzgesetz) annotation 188 (Dieterich et al. eds. 2006).Google Scholar

119 European Court of Justice, Decision of 11 July 2006, C-13/05 in: Der Betrieb 1617 (2006). Doubtfully if this clarifies the problem completely: Gregor Thüsing in: Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar

120 See supra B.Google Scholar

121 See, e.g. Germany § 612 para. 3 Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).Google Scholar

122 Art. 5 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar

123 Waddington, Lisa/Gendriks, Aart, The Expanding Concept of Employment Discrimination in Europe: From Direct and Indirect Discrimination To Reasonable Accommodation, 18/3 The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 403 (2003) who even see reasonable accommodation as form of discrimination sui generis.Google Scholar

124 See Art. 7 para. 1 Directive 2000/43/EC, art. 9 para 1 Directive 2000/73/EC, art. 6 para.1 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

125 See § 27 para. 1 no. 3 AGG.Google Scholar

126 Art. 8 para. 5 Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 10 para. 5 Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar

127 § 12 Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (FGG).Google Scholar

128 Art. 6 para. 2 Directive 2002/73/EC.Google Scholar

129 Jost-Hubertus Bauer in: Jobst-Hubertus Bauer/Gregor Thüsing/Achim Schunder, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar

130 See Gregor Thüsing, Following the U.S. Example: European Employment Discrimination Law and the Impact of Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, 19 The international journal of comparative labour law and industrial relations 187 (2003); Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus, Berliner Etikettenschwindel: der neue Gesetzentwurf zur Umsetzung der Europäischen Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinien, Der Betriebs-Berater 61, Heft 20, I (2006), Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus/Thüsing, Gregor/Schunder, Achim, Das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz – Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? in: Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 774 (2006).Google Scholar