Social Company

Posted by Toni - June 27th, 2014

It is considered that he could not test are dismissed as discriminatory by the enterprise that it claimed to ignore that the employee was pregnant. Women ensures that the dismissal occurred when she reported her pregnancy. The Supreme Court (TS) has endorsed the provenance of the dismissal of a pregnant woman after the trial period, considering who not been able to prove is that the decision to terminate the agreement by the company, which claimed to ignore that the employee was pregnant was discriminatory. So the room has agreed it social the TS in a sentence, which has been rapporteur Maria Lourdes Arastey, and against which six judges have issued a particular dissenting vote, to understand that company should justify the dismissal and prove that its decision does not relate to pregnancy. In its appeal, the woman, Nuria S.O., ensured that the dismissal occurred when she reported her pregnancy, but company, Cobra installations and services, argued that at no time he knew it and who in those dates, August 4, 2009, not only He communicated the termination of the contract to her but another colleague who also overcame the two-month trial period. In rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court argues, even if the company had known pregnancy, the fact that an identical to a male worker contract, extinct on the same date offered doubts about the dismissal of women was discriminatory. This is the same reasoning used in the judgment appealed, enacted on June 11, 2010 by the Chamber of the Social of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) and which in turn confirmed dictated in December 2009 by a Juzgado de lo Social. According to those judgments, the termination of the contract the worker pregnant only probation will be null when it is discriminatory and adds that, although accepting that the company knew the pregnancy, signs of injury would be destroyed by the fact that on the same date another employment contract of another male worker became extinct.

Tags: ,