|
|
|
|
|
Law
|
|
|
Law essay Juan Carlos can argue his case from two different angles: the first concerning arguing the breach in article 5 of Directive 76/207. Being Futura a private company Juan Carlos cannot benefit from direct effect of the directive, however indirect effect can be pursued as in Francovich, damages could be claimed by suing the state, in this case Finland for not having implemented the directive. It is clear that in this case Juan Carlos can argue of having suffered from direct sex discrimination. However it must be taken into consideration the fact that the counter argument could be supported by cases like Hoffman where Futura’s policies could come under the exception of articles 2 (3) of the Directive. Again in Juan Carlos’s favour cases like Lommers support the concept of parent equality between male and females in what concerns care of their child. However the strongest argument which can be supported by Juan Carlos is found in Directive 96/34 concerning parental leave in Clauses 1 (section 2) it is clearly stated that the directive applies equally to both male and females, therefore on these grounds Juan Carlos could claim 3 months parental leave which is granted to parents with children till the age of 8, which obviously comes in Juan Carlos’s scope being his daughter newborn.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
