Employee discrimination based on gender and family status in the light of the Supreme Court judgment II PK 116/07

In the present case, the plaintiff accused her employer of discriminating against her, in which she paid her remuneration half the amount received by other employees and refused to participate in training attended by other employees. As the plaintiff’s claims for compensation were not recognized by the courts of the first two instances, she lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the complaint was justified, and the lower court misinterpreted the provisions of the Labor Code. According to the Supreme Court, it is irrelevant that the claimant was refused to participate in the training once, and not many times – this is still a form of discrimination, and the claimant’s use of parental leave cannot be a reason for reducing her remuneration. This behavior was in breach of Art. 183b of the Labor Code, which indicates what actions of the employer violate equal treatment of employees.