Age discrimination at work

The Defender was approached by a complainant objecting against the procedure of her employer (a university), who, despite the fact the complainant worked there for twelve years, extended her employment contract for only a single year, where usually employment contracts were extended by three or even five years in some cases. By the end of 2014, when the complainant’s employment terminated, all older employees of the department where the complainant worked had been let go. A relative of the then-dean was the only exception.

The complainant approached the Labour Inspectorate which then carried out an inspection of the employer. The Labour Inspectorate found unequal treatment of the complainant in multiple areas. Aside from not extending the employment contract, she was required to retroactively justify her absences, although attendance records were kept very loosely and leaves were not even required. The complainant was also sent for an extraordinary medical examination and was repeatedly insulted because of her age. The unfavourable treatment did not concern solely the complainant, but also her other older colleagues and, subsequently, the younger colleagues who stood up for the victims of bullying.

In her inquiry, the Defender found that the collected evidence proved extraordinary and unfavourable treatment of the complainant, where age was most likely the reason for this kind of treatment. The Defender concluded that bullying, or unequal treatment (Section 16 (1) of the Labour Code), from the employer does not necessarily have to consist of making unlawful demands; it may also consist in excessive or selective application of otherwise lawful steps. The fact that the employer exercises its rights vis-à-vis a certain employee in the lawful scope does not by itself exclude the possibility the employer is bullying or treating the employee unequally.

However, this case can only be finally resolved by the court, with which the complainant filed an action.