Latest developments in 2019

• Author: Guomundsdottir, Guorun D.
• Pages: 66-67

66

12 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2019

12.1 Legislative amendments

There were no major legislative developments in 2019. Although the Racial Equality Act

(which entered into force on 1 September 2019) stipulates that, within one year of its entry

into force, the Prime Minister shall present a draft bill amending the legislation, expanding

its scope to cover discrimination on the additional grounds enumerated in the Labour

Equality Act in all spheres of life, except for the labour market in relation to the Labour

Equality Act, this bill is still to materialise.

12.2 Case law

The Equality Complaints Committee decided its first case based on the new Equality Acts

in August 2019.

Name of the body: Equality Complaints Committee

Date of decision: 30 August 2019

Name of the parties: A v. B

Reference number: 4/2019

Link:

https://www.stjornarradid.is/gogn/urskurdir-og-alit-/stakur-

urskurdur/?newsid=cc2abcb9-d3ba-11e9-9449-

005056bc530c&cname=K%C3%A6runefnd%20jafnr%C3%A9ttism%C3%A1la&cid=e219

adb3-4214-11e7-941a-005056bc530c

Brief summary: A, the respondent, runs a delivery van company where the applicant, B,

is a shareholder. B is a contractor and operates vans under the name of A’s company and

pays a fee for each car. B hires drivers who drive under A’s name and receive assignments

from A. Clause 22 of A’s operational rules requires drivers to speak, understand and write

Icelandic. Based on this rule, A considered a driver hired by B to be unqualified for the job,

as he did not speak Icelandic. The Equality Complaints Committee referred to the

preparatory notes to the draft Labour Equality Act, which state that ethnic origin refers to

the common origin of a group of people, as can be manifested through a common language.

Requiring proficiency in Icelandic may thus, in certain instances, constitute indirect

discrimination in violation of Article 7(1) of the Labour Equality Act. However, the

committee found that, according to Article 11(1) of the Act, differences in treatment based

on proficiency in Icelandic cannot be considered discrimination when they are based on the

nature of the job and on the context of the operations, and if the language proficiency

requirement serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate. The committee concurred with

A that, in relation to A’s operations, clear and efficient communication could be important

to ensure that the delivery services were provided in a satisfactory manner. Requiring

some Icelandic language skills would therefore be considered a legitimate aim within the

meaning of Article 11 of the Act. The remaining contentious issue concerned how far A

could go in his demands regarding Icelandic language skills. As B has declared that, at the

time of employment, the driver in question did not speak, understand or write Icelandic,

the committee ruled that neither the rights of B nor those of his employee under the Labour

Equality Act had been violated.

Mention should also be made of an important case in relation to disability.

Name of the court: Supreme Court

Date of decision: 30 October 2019

Name of the parties: The Child Protection Agency v. Freya Haraldsdóttir

Reference number: 21/2019

Link: https://www.haestirettur.is/default.aspx?pageid=347c3bb1-8926-11e5-80c6-

005056bc6a40&id=506444e3-354b-4ca5-aeac-40c1ee80575c