This article aims to show the specific nature of discrimina­tion based on more than one prohibited ground and the problems that arise in combating this phenomenon, us­ing the example of the European Union (EU). Research in this area is based on the hypothesis that it constitutes a specific form of unequal treatment in many respects and that it still poses a significant challenge for EU law and practice, despite some changes made in this area, particu­larly in legal regulations on gender equality. Furthermore, the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Un­ion (ECJ) towards this type of discrimination is puzzling. It typically contributes to raising standards of protection against unequal treatment. However, in this case, it does not, usually considering the criteria for discrimination sep­arately. As a result, the article first presents the challenges associated with defining and applying the concept in prac­tice. Then, it discusses and compares the regulations of EU secondary law that address discrimination based on more than one prohibited ground. The next section analy­ses the cases before the Court of Justice in which this form of discrimination has been invoked. The final remarks fo­cus on the most crucial challenges still faced by both the EU and its Member States, which are required to imple­ment the provisions of the relevant directives, including the directive on pay transparency (2023/970).

The article analyses the Court of Justice case law to show its impact on the scope of application of the Council Directive 2000/78/EC. The study is based on the hypothesis that provisions of the directive concerning its scope are subject to broad and functional interpretation by the Court of Justice which contributes to developing EU antidiscrimination law. The most important in this respect are decisions regarding the delineation of 'the reference circle' for comparisons, which are carried out to determine whether discrimination has taken place, as well as those regarding subsequent elements listed in Article 3 paragraph 1 of Directive 2000/78. As a result, the article starts with the presentation of the directive's regulations. The next two sections contain an analysis of the Court of Justice case law considered essential for the topic, including decisions given in 2021–2023. Conclusions focus on the most important aspects of these judgments that may be helpful in the application of Polish legal provisions implementing Directive 2000/78.

The article contains the analysis of EU standards for reasonable accommodation and tries to clarify their nature, scope and main types. Two hypotheses have been formulated in the research process. Firstly, both the legal provisions and the case law of the CJEU recognise that the concept of reasonable accommodation should be broad and flexible at the same time and treat it as important instrument for ensuring substantive equality of the workers with disabilities. Secondly, despite EU regulations on reasonable accommodation, employers do not always fulfill their obligation in a way that takes into account the individual needs of the people with disabilities. Consequently, the first part of the article concentrates on the EU legal framework for the obligation of reasonable accommodation, taking into account the sources of primary and secondary law and their mutual relations. Then, the most important decisions of the CJEU concerning this concept are presented, including those given in 2021-2022. The last part of the article focuses on the assessment of the legal nature and scope of reasonable accommodation, as well as identifies their common types and examples.