Rosenbladt v. Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges mbH
European Court of Justice
C-45/09 (2010)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Gisela Rosenbladt (plaintiff) worked as a cleaner for Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges mbH (Oellerking) (defendant), which was a cleaning firm that worked with the army. Rosenbladt worked part time and was not in a union. Even so, the cleaning sector had a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) in place that covered Oellerking. Under the CBA, employment relationships were required to end at the end of the month in which an employee became eligible for a statutory old-age pension or turned 65 years old, whichever was later. German courts had explained that the reason for this provision in the CBA was to ensure that young people would be able to find gainful employment and that management could engage in long-term personnel planning. However, there was little evidence that the mandatory retirement scheme had actually achieved these goals. Pursuant to that CBA, Oellerking informed Rosenbladt that her employment would end when she turned 65 years old and that she would receive a statutory old-age pension under German law. Rosenbladt sued Oellerking, claiming that she had been subjected to age discrimination. The domestic German court sent the matter to the European Court of Justice to determine the applicability of European Union law prohibiting age discrimination to German law that also prohibited age discrimination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.