Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a French national and qualified teacher, moved to the United Kingdom on 10 July 2006. Between September 2006 and August 2007 she worked mainly as a teaching assistant. She then enrolled in a post-graduate education course at The University but withdrew on 1 February 2008 when pregnant, with an expected confinement date of 2 June 2008.

From 22 January 2008 she undertook agency work in nursery schools but ceased on 12 March 2008, nearly six months pregnant, because the duties became too strenuous. On 18 March 2008, 11 weeks before her due date, she claimed income support on medical advice. The Defendant (Secretary of State) refused the claim on 4 May 2008. The child was born prematurely on 21 May 2008 and the Appellant returned to work three months later.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed her appeal on 4 September 2008; the Upper Tribunal reversed that decision on 7 May 2010. The Court of Appeal dismissed her further appeal on 13 July 2011. She now appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a pregnant EU citizen who temporarily ceases work owing to late pregnancy and childbirth retains the status of “worker” under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC.
2. If not covered by the exhaustive list in Article 7(3), whether the term “worker” can be further developed to include such persons without formal employment contracts during the period concerned.
3. Whether the exclusion of such women from “worker” status constitutes unlawful sex discrimination contrary to fundamental EU principles.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The term “worker” is interpreted broadly by the Court of Justice, considering social as well as economic factors; temporary cessation due to pregnancy does not sever “worker” status.
• Denying status would deter female workers from exercising free movement rights, conflicting with the Directive’s purpose.
• The concept of “worker” should not hinge on the continuation of a formal contract; agency workers and self-employed women on maternity breaks are treated analogously.
• Article 16 of the Directive recognises pregnancy as an “important reason” justifying temporary absence without loss of residence continuity, indicating similar protection should apply to Article 7.
• Exclusion amounts to direct sex discrimination because only women experience pregnancy; equal treatment requires accommodating reasonable pregnancy-related work interruptions.

Defendant's Arguments

• Recital 3 of Directive 2004/38 shows Article 7 codifies existing law; “worker” covers only those in employment, seeking work, or within Article 7(3)’s exhaustive extensions.
• Case law (State for Work and Pensions v Dias) confirms loss of “worker” status when a parent ceases work to care for a child; leaving for late pregnancy is analogous.
• Extending “worker” status would create uncertainty over duration; some pregnant women may never return to work.
• Refusal of income support is based on nationality, not sex; any indirect discrimination is justified (Patmalniece).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

A five-judge panel, led by Judge Hale, concluded that the legal position is not acte clair. While Directive 2004/38 was intended to codify existing law, the Court was not convinced this foreclosed further development of the term “worker.” The Justices observed:

• Pregnancy and childbirth are unique, non-pathological conditions requiring special consideration under the principle of equal treatment.
• Denying “worker” status during a brief, pregnancy-related work interruption could deter female workers from exercising free movement rights, contrary to EU objectives.
• Article 16 recognises pregnancy as a permissible reason for temporary absence without loss of residence continuity, suggesting similar flexibility under Article 7.
• Differentiating between salaried employees on maternity leave and agency or self-employed workers taking equivalent breaks could lead to arbitrary results.
• The existing case law on loss of status when caring for children (Dias, Johnson) might not be directly analogous because late-stage pregnancy is temporary and unavoidable.

Given these considerations, the Supreme Court determined that authoritative guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is required.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: REFERENCE TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Supreme Court referred two questions to the CJEU on whether Article 7 of Directive 2004/38 permits recognition of “worker” status for women who reasonably stop working during late pregnancy and immediately after childbirth, and whether national definitions of a reasonable period should apply.

Implications: The proceedings are stayed pending the CJEU’s ruling. The forthcoming decision may clarify free-movement rights for pregnant workers across the EU and determine eligibility for social assistance during maternity-related work interruptions.