Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.

The one that dismisses a pregnant woman must demonstrate that it did not discriminate it
The companies to which their workers impute discrimination because of sex will have to credit that the taken measures were not discriminatorias, according to a novel sentence of a court of the social thing of Madrid. The judge has ordered the reinstatement of a worker dismissed to period of test with all the formal requirements, but that was in gestation state. The sentence of the judge of social number 31 of Madrid, Ricardo Weddings, considers the dismissal of the worker of a company of chemical manufactures null. In the application of the Law of Equality, the magistrate considers “direct discrimination because of sex all unfavorable treatment to the women related to the pregnancy or the maternity”. The company alleged that the worker had not developed suitably her functions since “she did not read the protocols” nor “she weighed products suitably”, which constituted a “clear manifestation of bad faith, since pesaje of medecines was essential” and “it had been noticed to him repeatedly of by his action”. It alleged in addition that there was no dismissal, but extinction of the contract by overcoming of the period of test and did not deny that the moving body was the pregnancy, since in some occasion it had contracted pregnant workers. Nevertheless, the magistrate explains that article 8 of the Law of Equality considers “direct discrimination” all “unfavorable treatment” to the pregnant women. And article 13 of the same law anticipates that in the demands that are based on discrimination because of sex, “will correspond to the demanded person to prove the absence of discrimination in the adopted measures and their proportionality”. The judge happens to examine if the company credited that its action did not have anything to do with the pregnancy of the worker, and reaches the conclusion that it was not thus. Although it is certain that the company in some occasion contracted a pregnant woman, also considers proven who the plaintiff “scrupulously fulfilled the assignments of his job”. “If he failed to fulfill burdens and his professional obligations repeatedly, he is not understood because he allowed himself him to work up to five days before the victory of his period of test”, the magistrate reasons. JULIO M. LAZARO (the extracted News of the Country)
 
[Back]
Home Sitemap Contact us

Friendly site that we think is very safe:

kanutouren , property for sale costa del sol , used cars , Furniture products , fashion blog , BLC4u