1 Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women as Regards Access to Employment, Vocational Training and Promotion, and Working Conditions, Art. 2(1), (4), 1976 OJ (L39) 40 [hereinafter Equal Treatment Directive], European Union legal documents are available online at <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html>.

2 Treaty Establishing The European Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, Art. 141(1), (4) (previously Art. 119), 1997 O.J. (C340) 1, reprinted in 37 ILM 56 (1998) [hereinafter EC Treaty].

3 This point is reiterated in Declaration 28 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam and commenting on EC Treaty Article 141. The declaration states that in adopting measures to ensure the equality of men and women in working life, member states “should, in the first instance, aim at improving the situation of women.”

4 Case C-158/97, Badeck, 2000 ECR 1-1875 [hereinafter Badeck]. See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm>, for its recent judgments and the opinions of the advocate general.

5 Case C-407/98, Abrahamsson v. Fogelqvist, 2000 ECR 1-5539 [hereinafter Abrahamsson].

6 Case C-79/99, Schnorbus v. Land Hessen, 2000 ECR 1-10997 [hereinafter Schnorbus].

7 Case C-409/95, Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westphalen, 1997 ECR 1-6363.

8 Id., paras. 29-30 (cited in Badeck, supra note 4, para. 21).

9 Hessisches Gesetz über die Gleichberechtigung von Frauen und Männern und zum Abbau von Diskriminierungen von Frauen in der öffendichen Verwaltung [Law of the Land of Hesse on equal rights for women and men and the removal of discrimination against women in the public administration], GBVB1. Hesse I, at 729.

10 Badeck, supra note 4, para. 8.

11 Id., para. 23.

12 See id., para. 12, for a summary of questions concerning these five elements.

13 Id., para. 12 (1). The discussion of this first element can be found at paragraphs 26 to 38.

14 Translations of the relevant provisions of the Hesse statute are set forth in paragraph 9 of Badeck.

15 Id.

16 Id., para. 28.

17 Id., para. 36.

18 Id., para. 34.

19 Id., para. 30.

20 Id., para. 32.

21 Id., para. 31.

22 According to the Court, these criteria are intended to lead to substantive equality rather than merely formal equality. Formal equality seeks neutral application of gender-neutral laws. Substantive equality seeks a proportional distribution of men and women in different occupations and in other dimensions of social life. See Barnard, Catherine, Gender Equality in the EU: A Balance Sheet, in The Eu and Human Rights 215 (Philip Alston ed., 1999)Google Scholar.

23 The discussion of this second element can be found at paragraphs 39-44.

24 Id., para. 42.

25 The discussion of this third element can be found at paragraphs 45-55.

26 Id., para. 45.

27 The discussion of this fourth element can be found at paragraphs 56-63.

28 The discussion of this fifth element can be found at paragraphs 64—67.

29 Id., para. 64.

30 The Court expressly refrained from evaluating this fifth element under the new Article 141(4) of the Treaty of Amsterdam even though Advocate General Saggio had discussed that article in his opinion. He argued that the savings clause of Article 2(4) of the Equal Treatment Directive should no longer be strictly construed as an exception to the fundamental right of equal treatment. Moreover, where formal equality or equality of opportunity as interpreted by the ECJ has not adequately assisted women in achieving equality in the workplace, then positive action that gives them actual priority in appointments and promotions is consistent with EC law. In sum, formal and substantive equality are only antithetical where (1) positive action is arbitrary in excessively affecting the rights of others and (2) positive action is not proportionate to the actual needs of the disadvantaged group. Opinion of Advocate General Saggio, paras. 26-30 (June 10,1999), Badeck, supra note 4 [hereinafter Badeck AG opinion]; see supra note 22 (distinction between formal and substantive equality).

31 Regulation 1995:936. See Abrahamsson, supra note 5, paras. 12-15.

32 For purposes of this brief note, we are abbreviating the procedural history and issues in this case.

33 Case C-450/93, Kalanke v. Bremen, 1995 ECR 1-3051; see Case C409/95, Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westphalen, 1997 ECR 1-6363.

34 Abrahamsson, supra note 5, para. 43 (citing Badeck, supra note 4, para. 23); see supra text accompanying note 11.

35 Id., para. 49.

36 Id., para. 50.

37 Id., para. 55.

38 The Hesse statute was subsequently amended in May 1998 so that only 15 percent of the training slots were to be filled on the basis of hardship (including compulsory national service). Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, para. 11 (July 6, 2000), Schnorbus, supra note 6 [hereinafter Schnorbus AG opinion].

39 Schnorbus, supra note 6, para. 16.

40 Id., para. 20.

41 See id., paras. 30-39.

42 See Schnorbus AG opinion, supra note 38, paras. 30-33 (referring to a similar definition in Article 2(2) of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the Burden of Proof in Cases of Discrimination Based on Sex, 1998 OJ (L14) 6).

43 Schnorbus, supra note 6, paras. 40-47.

44 Badeck, supra note 4, paras. 30-32, cited in Abrahamsson, supra note 5, paras. 46-47.

45 In their statutes on higher education, at least four German states have binding prescriptions to prefer equally qualified women candidates for research assistantships, lecturer positions, and tenured positions: Berlin (student research assistantships); Bremen (all positions); Hamburg (tenured positions and lecturer positions); and Lower Saxony (all positions and scholarships). Anne Peters, Women, Quotas and Constitutions 135-36 (1999).

46 In their statutes on higher education, seven German states require (with various qualifications) that women fill half of the training openings: Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, and Saxony. Id. at 134-35.

47 When women are underrepresented, Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Saxony require that 50 percent of the persons invited for interviews must be women, and Saxony-Anhalt requires drat all qualified female candidates for a governmental position must be invited for interviews. Id. at 135.

48 Case C-409/95, Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westphalen, 1997 ECR 1-6363.

49 In Germany, the disabled make up the largest group receiving such preferences. Peters, supra note 45, at 199-200.

50 Id. at 303 n.122. For the American experience, see Lawton, Anne, The Meritocracy Myth and the Illusion of Equal Opportunity, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 587, 617–28 (2000)Google Scholar (public perception is that discrimination against women is effectively nonexistent because express statements of gender stereotypes have declined even though men whose qualifications are objectively equal to those of women are often judged better qualified for a job).

51 Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 295 n.34 (1978).

52 For a discussion of American attitudes, see generally Lawton, supra note 51, at 617-28, but at least some Europeans may be less merit-oriented and competitive than Americans are. For the case of Germany, see Peters, supra note 45, at 280.

53 See, e.g., Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, 3 F.3d 1419, 1426-27 (10th Cir. 1993).

54 See Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616, 630 (1987) (a valid affirmative action plan must balance men’s interests); Acker, Joan, Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations, in The Social Construction of Gender 162 (Judith Lorber & Susan A. Farrell eds., 1991)Google Scholar.

55 Some legal scholars believe that Article 141 reflects a stance in favor of substantive equality “in the sense of equally worthy living conditions and options.” Peters, supra note 45, at 235.

56 Badeck AG opinion, supra note 30, para. 26.

57 See supra note 50 and accompanying text.

58 Peters ; supra note 45, at 210 n.525.