Translation of "Ordonnance sur l'égalité pour les handicapés " (French → English) :

Ordinance of 19 November 2003 on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities [ EPDO ]

Federal Act of 13 December 2002 on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities | Disability Discrimination Act [ DDA ]

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62016CA0270 - EN - Case C-270/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca — Spain) — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares SA, Ministerio Fiscal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(2)(b)(i) — Prohibition of discrimination based on disability — National legislation permitting, subject to certain conditions, the dismissal of an employee by reason of intermittent absences, ...[+++]even where justified — Worker’s absences resulting from illnesses linked to his disability — Difference in treatment based on disability — Indirect discrimination — Whether justified — Combating absenteeism in the workplace — Whether appropriate — Whether proportionate) // Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca — Spain) — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares SA, Ministerio Fiscal // (Case C-270/16) - ( // ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(2)(b)(i) - Prohibition of discrimination based on disability - National legislation permitting, subject to certain conditions, the dismissal of an employee by reason of intermittent absences, even where justified - Worker’s absences resulting from illnesses linked to his disability - Difference in treatment based on disability - Indirect discrimination - Whether justified - Combating absenteeism in the workplace - Whether appropriate - Whether proportionate))

Case C-270/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca — Spain) — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares SA, Ministerio Fiscal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(2)(b)(i) — Prohibition of discrimination based on disability — National legislation permitting, subject to certain conditions, the dismissal of an employee by reason of intermittent absences, even where justified — Worker’s absences resulting from illnesses linked t ...[+++]o his disability — Difference in treatment based on disability — Indirect discrimination — Whether justified — Combating absenteeism in the workplace — Whether appropriate — Whether proportionate)

Urges the Commission and the Council to fully exploit the potential that the information society, ICT and the internet have to promote women’s empowerment, women’s rights and freedoms and gender equality, irrespective of age, disability, genetic features, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, social or ethnic origin, religion or belief or economic status.

Fourth plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the requirement that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms and of the principle that actions are to be assessed on the basis of the information existing at the time the contested measure was adopted, in that the CST took the view, in paragraph 77 of its order, that the appellant based his arguments, derived from the principle of equal treatment, on the consequences of the contested decision and rejected them in any event on the basis of those consequences; and (ii) infringement of the obligation t ...[+++]o state reasons, the principle that the provisions of the Staff Regulations are to be interpreted in accordance with the principle of equality and the principle of equality itself, in that the CST, in paragraphs 77 and 78 to 80 of its order, failed to respond to the requisite legal standard to the appellant’s arguments.