Kontrast:

Skriftstørrelse:

Søk:
Summaries of Cases: 2006
 

Case 1/2006 - Action in favour of one of the sexes – recruiting female board directors.

Case 2/2006 - Different treatment of men and women – routine screening to detect cancer.

Case 3/2006 - Appeal to the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to re-open a case dismissed by the Gender Equality Ombud.

Case 4/2006 - Equal pay for work of equal value – comparison of mid-level managers in a municipality.

Case 5/2006 – Employment in a temporary position as senior nurse in a nursing home – pregnant employee passed over?

Case 7/2006 - Question of possible indirect discrimination of a female product specialist whose position had changed upon her return to work after maternity leave.

Case 8/2006 - Employee in temporary position as teacher not offered a new temporary position when pregnant

Case 9/2006 – The ban on the donation of eggs in section 2-8 of the Biotechnology Act is not in breach of section 3 of the Gender Equality Act. General assessments concerning the Tribunal’s competence and task.

Case 10/2006 - Announcing a position at the Dry-Cleaner’s with the following advertisement: “Mature female aged 30-50 years is encouraged to apply for the vacancy in our Dry-Cleaner’s at Røa”.

Case 11/2006 – Discontinuation of night duty was not in breach of section 3 of the Gender Equality Act. A woman on night-duty was not salaried in breach of sections 5 and 3 of the Gender Equality Act.

Case 13/2006 – Differential remuneration of a male and two woman planning and development consultants by a health authority did not contravene section 5 of the Gender Equality Act.

Case 15/2006 – An application for the reopening of Case 29/2005 of the former Gender Equality Board of Appeals was not allowed.

Case 16/2006 – Relationship between the conditions for a waiting benefit in section 10-2 of the Regulations on Labour Market Measures and the conditions in section 3 of the Gender Equality Act.

Case 17/2006 – The salary of a female senior consultant was not in breach of the Gender Equality Act.  Comparison with a male typographer in the same newspaper company pursuant to section 5 and section 3 of the Gender Equality Act.

Case 18/2006 – A housing advertisement and the practice of renting only to Norwegian citizens were in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act. * The whole case is translated into English, see Cases in english.

Case 19/2006 – No differential treatment by private school on account of maternity leave in connection with appointment of substitute teacher.

Case 20/2006 – Partial coverage of course fee for women and a quota of 2/3 female participants in a course on Board work were not in breach of the Gender Equality Act.

Case 21/2006 – Differences in pay for the military and civilian executive officers at the Ministry of Defence were not in breach of section 5 of the Gender Equality Act.
An employees’ organisation demanded equal pay for civilian and military executive officers at the Ministry of Defence.

Case 22/2006 – Employer acted in breach of the Gender Equality Act when woman was given different work responsibilities upon her return from maternity leave.

Case 23/2006 – Woman applying for appointment to a permanent position as physical therapist subjected to differential treatment by municipality on account of maternity leave.

Case 24/2006 – Direct differential treatment on account of childbirth. Failure to arrange for an examination seen in the light of the legal effects of the candidate’s not sitting for the examination

Case 25/2006 – Woman not subjected to differential treatment by employer due to maternity leave in connection with her application for appointment to a permanent position as executive officer.

Case 26/2006 – An employer had not subjected a candidate to differential treatment on account of maternity leave in connection with her application for a permanent position as police lawyer.

Case 27/2006 – The appeal against the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud’s summary dismissal of a case regarding possible age-based discrimination in connection with an application for a personal post-doctorate grant was not allowed/rejected.

 Likestillings- og diskrimineringsnemnda Postboks 8049 Dep, 0031 Oslo, Telefon: 95 19 68 00 / 01
 
Vedtak og uttalelser
 
Sak 10/2011 Vedtak

Saken gjaldt klage over likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudets uttalelse av 21. januar 2011. Spørsmålet om Posten Norge AS har handlet i strid med forbudet mot aldersdiskriminering i arbeidsmiljøloven § 13-1, og/eller med forbudet mot diskriminerings på grunn av etnisitet i diskrimineringsloven § 4.

Likestillings- og diskrimineringsnemnda konkluderte med at Posten Norge AS ikke hadde handlet i strid med arbeidsmiljøloven § 13-1 eller diskrimineringsloven § 4.

Les mer...
Sak 56/2010 Vedtak

Saken gjelder Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudets uttalelse av 11. august 2010. Spørsmål om en campingplass handlet i strid med diskriminerings- og tilgjengelighetsloven § 9 tredje ledd, ved ikke å sørge for universell utforming av virksomhetens inngang og lokaler. Nemnda konkluderte med at forholdet var i strid med loven, og påla campingplassen å rette forholdet innen seks måneder.

 

Les mer...
Sak 62/2010 Uttalelse

Saken gjaldt klage over Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudets uttalelse av 19. oktober 2010. Spørsmål om aldersdiskriminering og spørsmål om diskriminering på grunn av nedsatt funksjonsevne. Vurdering etter arbeidsmiljøloven § 13-1 (1). Nemnda konkluderte med at forholdet ikke var i strid med loven.

Les mer...
Sak 26/2010 Vedtak

Saken gjaldt klage over Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudets henleggelse av 12. mai 2010. Klager krevde at Ombudet skulle vurdere om han ble utsatt for diskriminering av en rekke statlige instanser, først og fremst Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet. Nemnda opprettholdt Ombudets henleggelse, og klagen førte ikke frem.

Les mer...
 
   
webløsning: seria.no | design: Kreoteket