Mrs. Meister, unlucky applicant for the position of experienced software developer, considered that she was discriminated against because of her gender, age and ethnical origin (she is Russian). Therefore, she sued the company which rejected her application – Speech Design – and asked that the latter provide her with the file of the applicant who was hired, allowing her to prove that she was more qualified. The judicial developments of this initial action led to the interpretation question being asked to the ECJ. The Court was to determine whether Directives 2006/54 (women), 2000/43 (gender and ethic origin) and 2000/78 (age, belief…) “must be interpreted as entitling a worker who claims plausibly that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement and whose application was rejected to have access to information indicating whether the employer engaged another applicant at the end of the recruitment process and, if so, on the basis of which criteria.”
al action led to the interpretation question being asked to the ECJ. The Court was to determine whether Directives 2006/54 (women), 2000/43 (gender and ethic origin) and 2000/78 (age, belief…) “must be interpreted as entitling a worker who claims plausibly that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement and whose application was rejected to have access to information indicating whether the employer engaged another applicant at the end of the recruitment process and, if so, on the
…Do you have information to share with us?