Case 1/2008 - A hotel refused two women access on the grounds of gender and ethnicity.
Case 2/2008 - A hospital discriminated on the grounds of ethnicity and skin colour in connection with the appointment of a physician.
Case 3/2008 - An employer did not discriminate against a part-time employee on the grounds of age and disability.
Case 4/2008 - The Football Association of Norway (NFF) did not discriminate against a women’s football team on the grounds of gender.
Case 6/2008 - A hotel attached importance to pregnancy and maternity leave in connection with the appointment of a chef. This was in breach of section 4 second paragraph of the Gender Equality Act, cf. section 3.
Case 8/2008 - A municipality discriminated on the grounds of age and gender in connection with the appointment of a person to a temporary position and the subsequent permanent position as a fire-fighter. This was in breach of section 13-1 of the Working Environment Act and section 3 of the Gender Equality Act.
Case 9/2008 - The opportunity for outdoor exercise and the offer of physical activity for female prisoners in Stavanger prison are not in breach of section 3 of the Gender Equality Act.
Case 11/2008 - A bakery did not contravene the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age in connection with appointment to a management position. Assessment under section 13-1 of the Working Environment Act.
Case 12/2008 - A ministry did not contravene the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age in connection with the development of the complainant’s pay. Assessment under section 13-1(1) of the Working Environment Act, see also section 13-2(1)(c).
Case 13/2008 - Vinmonopolet applied differential treatment on account of maternity leave in connection with the appointment of a shop manager. Section 4, second paragraph, and section 3 of the Gender Equality Act.
Case 15/2008 - An appeal against a dismissal decision of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud did not succeed. Assessment under section 3, fifth paragraph, of the Anti-Discrimination Ombud Act.
Case 16/2008 - A hospital applied differential treatment on account of maternity leave in connection with the appointment of a temporary doctor.
Case 17/2008 - A computer company did not apply differential treatment on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour pursuant to section 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Case 18/2008 - An upper secondary school contravened the prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and language in section 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act in connection with the appointment of a permanent teacher.
Case 19/2008 - StatoilHydro ASA did not apply differential treatment on account of gender reassignment or age in connection with the appointment of North Sea process technicians.
Case 21/2008 - An appeal against the Ombud’s dismissal of a case succeeded. The case concerned the effect of the Gender Equality Act in relation to residences that could only be sold to and occupied by unmarried women.
Case 22/2008 - An appeal against the Ombud’s dismissal of a case did not succeed. The case concerned the effect of the Gender Equality Act in relation to spouse’s pensions.
Case 23/2008 - Harstad Municipality’s remuneration of two charge nurses did not contravene the Gender Equality Act. Comparison, under section 5 and section 3 of the Gender Equality Act, with four male technical coordinators employed by the municipality in the technical sector.
Case 24/2008 - The Football Association of Norway contravened the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in connection with the nomination of international football referees. Assessment under section 3 of the Gender Equality Act.
Case 25/2008 - Municipality discriminated on the basis of pregnancy and maternity leave when employing a kindergarten manager.
Case 26/2008 - Municipality did not act contrary to the proibition against discrimination because of ethnicity and/or national origin in Section 4 of the Gender Equality Act by not calling the Claimant in for interview for positions as project employees.
Case 27/2008 - Municipality acted contrary to the prohibition against retaliation in Section 3, subsection five, of the Gender Equality Act by making the the decision that the Claimant should no longer be employed.
Case 28/2008 - The Ombud had made a decision to drop and dismiss the case. The Claimant was successful in the appeal against dismissal. The question was whether the wrong use of the concept ”selective mutism”, inadequate language training and lack of follow-up regarding bullying was due to ethnic background, skin colour or language.
Case 29/2008 - Remuneration of section leaders at a hospital was not contrary to Section 5, cf. Section 3 of the General Equality Act. Comparison of four female section leaders with nursing education and two male section leaders who were doctors.
Case 30/2008 - Appeal against the Ombud’s dropping of the case was not successful. Question of practising of rules regarding collection of child support in the case of kidnapping to another country entails illegal discrimination of men.
Case 31/2008 - A Hospital, by the ambulance personnel, did not discriminate contrary to Section 4 of the Gender Equality Act in connection with a call to Sofienbergparken, on 6 August 2007.
Case 32/2008 - State health care institution did not discriminate because of age in connection with pay and work tasks. Evaluation in accordance with Chapter 13 of the Working Environment Act.
Skriv ut denne siden
