W200 Tma 03

Question 1
(A) The reason that Mrs Duke did not win against GEC Reliant {1988] is because Mrs Duke was required to retire at age 60, a lower age than that at which a man in her position would have been required to retire. She complained that this was unlawfully discriminatory on grounds of sex, s.6 (2) of the Act which prohibits discrimination against a woman 'by dismissing her'.
But in s.6 (4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which (prior to its amendment by the Sex Discrimination Act 1986) excluded discrimination complaints with respect to “provision in relation to death or retirement”. Also within the Equal Pay Act it does not require equal treatment as regards terms and conditions “related to retirement, marriage and death or to any provision made in connection with retirement, marriage of death”.   Because of this Mrs Duke did not win due to the fact that retirement ages are not always acted on but that they are lawful within the ages set out, that the age of retirement is governed by parliament and that the rules of interpretation are also in effect so that s.6 (4) preserved the right of an employer to operate discriminatory ages of retirement and therefore was within their right to ask her to retire.

(B) If the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207) was force able in relation to Mrs Dukes case the according to the directive it states that “equality between men and women as regards access to employment and vocational training and promotion and as regards working conditions, including pay”. If this was enforced ignoring the Sexual Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act then the chances are that under the directive solely Mrs Duke would have won on the basis that the directive ensures equality between men and women, therefore she would not have been required to retire at age 60 but could have continued until 65 which is the retirement age of men.

(C)   The reason that the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act did not reflect the Equal Treatment Act is...