[ad_1]
The fact that an employer terminates a probationary commitment for a pregnant woman who is being abused prior to her delivery does not constitute discrimination. He strikes the labor court and thus inscribes himself in the employer's remarks in a case conducted by the Ombudsman for Discrimination, DO.
It was in December 2015 that the woman began her appointment as a consultant in a company knowing that she was pregnant with a planned delivery in May of the year.
In early April, the woman was poorly prescribed half time because of her pregnancy and, almost two weeks later, she became a full-time sick writer, while she was supposed to have parental leave.
The woman gave birth to her child and in May the employer informed her that her probationary appointment would be canceled prematurely.
100,000 in compensation
The Discrimination Ombudsman, DO, sued the employer alleging that the woman had been discriminated against and that the decision to terminate the trial was due to her pregnancy.
DO requested that the woman receive a discrimination allowance of 100,000 SEK from the employer. The opinion of DO is reported in AD's judgment:
"At the beginning of her employment, the company stated that her work had earned her a part-time sick leave as of April 4, 2016. That's only when, because of her pregnancy, K became tired and less resistant to stress and had to be sick part time Her pregnancy affected the company, especially because her job had to be redeployed. "
"The company had not calculated that K would need to be relieved of the end of her pregnancy and let her go about it by completing her testimony … The company showed that it was contrary to the ethics of a pregnant woman to look for new work and was not ready to take care of K when her pregnancy had financial consequences for the company. "
"Finished for other reasons"
The company, for its part, rejected the charge and claims that the trial appointment was effectively canceled for any other reason. The perception of the company is also stated in the judgment:
"The company chose to terminate K's employment because she was deemed to lack the skills and qualifications that she deemed essential for her consultants." acquiring her duties as well as planning and carrying out the tasks assigned to her was insufficient and she did not take sufficient responsibility for their own work and their professional situation ".
"She also expressed a negative attitude towards the company and the other employees of the company, especially when an external consultant was present."
Discrimination not proven
The Labor Court now stands by the employer's comments and believes that any discrimination is not proven. AD writes in his judgment:
"The mere fact that an employer, prior to the expiry of the probationary period, interrupts a probationary engagement for a pregnant worker during the probationary period and whose work capacity is reduced due to the fact that she is not working. a pregnancy, does not allow to assume that the interruption was related to pregnancy. "
There may be other reasons
There may also be "a variety of reasons" for canceling a test appointment, even though the employee – as in the case of the woman – was commended for her efforts during the trial.
AD writes:
"The summary of the Labor Court's finding is that the circumstances invoked and omitted by DO, even in common, suggest that discrimination was committed in DO's claims. compensation for OD discrimination must be rejected. "
Free Juridics Newsletter on Legal Affairs and Law – click here
[ad_2]
Source link
