It was not discrimination on the grounds of gender that a replacement worker in a cleaning company had fewer shifts during her pregnancy.
The case concerned a woman who was employed as a replacement, working on an on-call basis with no fixed working hours. Shortly after announcing that she was pregnant, she received fewer shifts than previously. The Board of Equal Treatment had to assess whether this was reflective of unlawful discrimination.
For a period of a few months before announcing that she was pregnant, the replacement worker worked slightly more than 25 hours a week on average. One month after announcing her pregnancy, the woman was asked to fill out a statement about whether she wanted permanent employment. When replacement workers reach six months of seniority, the applicable collective agreement required the employer to offer permanent employment. The woman did not fill out the statement.
On the same day, the employer was contacted by the woman's representative, who stated that the woman would like to be hired on a permanent basis. She had only refused permanent employment because she had been told by the employer that this would mean fewer shifts.
In the next period, the woman had far fewer shifts (coming down to 21 hours in one month), and after that she was not used at all. The woman believed this was in violation of the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women.
The employer tried to find a solution and offered the woman permanent employment in the form of part-time positions on several occasions, but up to a maximum of 120 hours a month. All the employer’s suggestions were rejected by the woman who continued to demand a weekly working time of 37.5 hours, although positions exceeding 30 hours per week were not normal in the industry.
A majority on the Board of Equal Treatment ruled that there was no basis for considering the course of events as a dismissal or other discriminatory treatment, since the woman only worked as a replacement with a variable working pattern and without fixed working hours. Section 9 of the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women had therefore not been violated.
The minority, on the other hand, believed that because of, among other things, the marked decline in hours that occurred shortly after informing the employer that she was pregnant and the inadequate form of the offer of permanent employment, the woman had experienced less favourable treatment during her pregnancy.
In light of the majority's opinion that section 9 of the Act was not violated, the shared burden of proof applied. Here, the Board of Equal Treatment came to the conclusion that the woman had not established any facts that indicated that her pregnancy had been instrumental in the reduction in the number of hours worked or the fact that she was not permanently employed.
The content of the above is not, and should not be a substitute for legal advice.
Are employers responsible for the behaviour of others?
A care assistant experienced offensive behaviour of a sexual nature from the disabled citizen she had been hired to care for. The care assistant’s employer was not responsible for the disabled citizen’s behaviour, but the subsequent dismissal of the care assistant was in conflict with the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women. That was the decision of the Eastern High Court in this case.
Dismissal of an employee with a reduced-hours job who reached the statutory retirement age did not constitute unlawful discrimination
The Danish Supreme Court has established that an employer’s dismissal of a disabled employee with a publicly funded reduced-hours job when he reached the mandatory retirement age and the public funding lapsed did not conflict with the Anti-Discrimination Act.