Vera Mia Beets-Proper v. F. van Lanschot Bankiers NV, 21 November 1986

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands held that a provision of a contract stipulating that a female employee was entitled to a pension at age 60 and a male employee at age 65 was void and in violation of European Community Council Directive of 9 September 1976. It reached this decision following a similar decision by the European Court of Justice.

United Kingdom. Court of Appeal. Pickstone v. Freemans plc, 25 March 1987

The applicants, female warehouse operatives for the defendant, challenged the defendant's policy of paying warehouse checkers more than they were being paid. They claimed that both groups were engaged in work of equal value and should be given equal pay. The case was dismissed by a lower court because the defendant employed men in both positions at the same pay as women in those positions and the Equal Pay Act 1970 prohibited suits in such circumstances. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that Article 119 of the EEC Treaty authorized the suit and overrode conflicting national legislation. It remanded the case for determination whether the pay differential between the two jobs was due to reasons other than sex discrimination.

Roe v. Abortion Abolition Society, 9 March 1987

The plaintiffs, two patients, two physicians, a clinic providing abortion services, members of its staff, and an escort service, sought to bring a class action against an anti-abortion society and its members under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which prohibits private conspiracies to deprive persons or classes of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws. They claimed that the defendants had harassed, intimidated, and assaulted them. The Court held that the plaintiffs did not constitute a class for purposes of the statute because holding similar religious views on abortion was not sufficient to meet the common characteristics requirement of a class. The Court, however, allowed class action suits based on different statutory provisions to continue against several municipalities for failure to protect the plaintiffs' rights against the society and its members.

Judgment, 16 December 1987

The Court ordered the dissolution of a surrogate mother association acting as an intermediary between sterile couples and voluntary surrogate mothers. It declared that the association was acting contrary to the law and to good morals. The Court, however, allowed the clinic to continue to operate until an appeal of its decision had been decided. This association was one of three ordered dissolved at the request of the Minister of Health on 16 October 1987 (see Le Monde, 19 October 1987, p. 8).

Judgment, 14 December 1987

The Court held that a "father" has a right to visit a child born to his wife while they were married even if the child was conceived as the result of artificial insemination with the semen of another man. It reasoned that any decision on this issue had to be decided by taking into account the best interests of the child and that the child needed two parents. It noted that a legal motion brought by the child through the mother to have the child declared not to be the off-spring of the "father" had been denied.

Judgment, 13 February 1987

The Court held that a city council has no right to make the willingness to perform legal abortions a condition of employment for the post of Chief Physician in a public hospital. It ruled that such a condition binds a physician's freedom of choice, which is guaranteed under abortion laws, which do not obligate a physician to perform abortions unless there is an immediate threat of death or serious injury to a pregnant woman.

Judgment, 13 May 1987

The Court reversed a lower court decision and held that an employer is required to pay wages to an employee who is on sick leave in order to have an abortion performed for social reasons. It rejected a distinction made by the lower court between abortions performed on eugenic grounds or because of rape and those performed for social reasons. It concluded that legislative history shows that both kinds of abortions were meant to be treated in the same way.

Judgment, 9 February 1987

The plaintiff was a sixteen-year-old girl who sought authorization from the Court for an abortion after her mother would not give consent, as required for minors by law. The Court held that the mother's withholding consent was not an abuse of her right to raise her daughter. It ruled that even if there could be an exception to this requirement of parental consent in the case of mature minors--an issue not decided here--the plaintiff did not fall within this category. It also concluded that the mother could refuse consent out of her own self-interest, since she was not obligated by law to give any reason, and that she could also refuse to care for her daughter, since the daughter would receive adequate care in a children's home.

United States. Rhode Island. Supreme Court. In Re Doe, 12 November 1987

The natural mother of profoundly retarded woman in custody of the state challenged an order of the Family Court that the pregnancy of her daughter be terminated. The order was made pursuant to the petition of the executive director of the Division of Retardation of the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals. The Court rejected the challenge, holding that the conclusion of the Family Court that the young woman, if she had been able, would have decided to have an abortion, was correct, particularly in light of the fact that she was suffering from seizure disorder and cerebral palsy.