PubMed1988
The appellant, a female employee of the respondent, charged the respondent with sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because she had been forced to retire at age 60, while men were not forced to retire until age 65. The respondent justified its retirement policy by pointing to provisions in the Act permitting discrimination with respect to retirement. On appeal from a lower court (Annual Review of Population Law, Vol. 14, 1987, Section 630) the House of Lords of the UK rejected the appellant's argument that European Community Council Directive 76/207 required courts to construe the 1970 Act so as to give effect to the principle of equal treatment. It held that a court had to interpret a British act in terms of the language of the act considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the date of enactment and could not distort the meaning of the act to enforce against an individual a directive that has no direct effect between individuals, but only on the State. On 13 May 1988, the Court of Appeal held that women forced to retire at age 60, rather than 65, the age at which men were forced to retire, could not rely on Directive 76/207. The women claimed that their employer, British Gas, was assimilated to the State and was bound to comply with the Directive. The Court ruled that, although British Gas was owned by the State, it was not identifiable with the State for "direct effect purposes." See Foster vs. British Gas, Common Market Law Reports, No. 2, 1988, p. 697.