118:
The ECJ held Member States ‘depending on the circumstances, national authorities have a certain degree of discretion when adopting measures which they consider to be necessary in order to guarantee public security in a Member State’. Because marines were the ‘point of the arrow head’ the competent
109:
Ms Sirdar was refused a position in the marines, and made redundant from position as chef. In the marines there had to be interoperability, so all marine members had to be capable of combat. There was a ban on combat for women.
421:
148:
371:
273:
315:
181:
426:
431:
416:
301:
235:
287:
209:
141:
343:
17:
197:
134:
387:
261:
40:
355:
331:
249:
94:
69:
221:
187:
167:
164:
171:
410:
382:
367:
98:
321:
305:
291:
239:
225:
126:
130:
119:
authorities were justified in having it be exclusively male.
101:
case concerning genuine occupational requirements for a job.
51:
Sirdar v The Army Board & Secretary of State for
Defence
18:
Sirdar v The Army Board & Secretary of State for
Defence
76:
64:
56:
46:
36:
31:
422:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
142:
8:
275:Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v Khan
149:
135:
127:
28:
317:Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
183:Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd
302:Roma Rights Centre v Prague Immigration
7:
236:Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2)
288:Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary
25:
210:R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council
427:1999 in United Kingdom case law
432:European Union labour case law
417:United Kingdom labour case law
344:English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd
1:
262:Grant v South-West Trains Ltd
198:Horsey v Dyfed County Council
157:Direct discrimination cases
448:
388:UK employment equality law
364:
352:
340:
328:
312:
298:
284:
270:
258:
246:
232:
218:
206:
194:
178:
162:
81:
41:European Court of Justice
356:Grainger plc v Nicholson
90:Sirdar v The Army Board
32:Sirdar v The Army Board
332:Coleman v Attridge Law
222:James v Eastleigh BC
250:Smith v Safeway plc
265:ICR 449 (C-249/96)
378:
377:
165:Equality Act 2010
86:
85:
16:(Redirected from
439:
318:
276:
184:
151:
144:
137:
128:
29:
21:
447:
446:
442:
441:
440:
438:
437:
436:
407:
406:
401:
396:
379:
374:
360:
348:
336:
335:(2008) C-303/06
324:
316:
308:
294:
280:
274:
266:
254:
242:
228:
214:
202:
190:
182:
174:
158:
155:
125:
116:
107:
60:26 October 1999
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
445:
443:
435:
434:
429:
424:
419:
409:
408:
405:
404:
400:
397:
395:
392:
391:
390:
385:
376:
375:
365:
362:
361:
353:
350:
349:
341:
338:
337:
329:
326:
325:
313:
310:
309:
299:
296:
295:
285:
282:
281:
271:
268:
267:
259:
256:
255:
247:
244:
243:
233:
230:
229:
219:
216:
215:
207:
204:
203:
195:
192:
191:
179:
176:
175:
163:
160:
159:
156:
154:
153:
146:
139:
131:
124:
121:
115:
112:
106:
103:
84:
83:
82:Discrimination
79:
78:
74:
73:
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
48:
47:Full case name
44:
43:
38:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
444:
433:
430:
428:
425:
423:
420:
418:
415:
414:
412:
403:
402:
398:
393:
389:
386:
384:
383:UK labour law
381:
380:
373:
369:
363:
358:
357:
351:
347:EWCA Civ 1421
346:
345:
339:
334:
333:
327:
323:
320:
319:
311:
307:
304:
303:
297:
293:
290:
289:
283:
278:
277:
269:
264:
263:
257:
252:
251:
245:
241:
238:
237:
231:
227:
224:
223:
217:
212:
211:
205:
200:
199:
193:
189:
186:
185:
177:
173:
169:
166:
161:
152:
147:
145:
140:
138:
133:
132:
129:
122:
120:
113:
111:
104:
102:
100:
99:UK labour law
96:
92:
91:
80:
75:
72:, ECR I-7403
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
52:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
372:equality law
359:IRLR 4 (EAT)
354:
342:
330:
314:
300:
286:
272:
260:
248:
234:
220:
208:
196:
180:
117:
108:
89:
88:
87:
50:
26:
411:Categories
399:References
368:UK labour
65:Citations
188:IRLR 322
123:See also
114:Judgment
95:C-273/97
77:Keywords
70:C-273/97
322:UKSC 15
306:UKHL 55
292:UKHL 11
279:UKHL 48
253:ICR 868
240:UKHL 13
213:AC 1155
201:ICR 755
93:(1999)
68:(1999)
57:Decided
226:UKHL 6
394:Notes
168:ss 13
105:Facts
97:is a
37:Court
370:and
366:see
170:and
172:136
413::
150:e
143:t
136:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.