Ms Elsebeth Aaes-Jørgensen

Elsebeth Aaes-Jørgensen

Updates

Employment & Immigration

Employee dismissed because she went behind employer's back and worked with business partner
Denmark | 03 March 2021

In a recent case, a court ruled that an employer's summary dismissal of a manager was justified, since the manager had entered into a contract with one of the employer's business partners without the employer's approval. The case highlights the difficult considerations regarding evidence that employers must make before making a choice of disciplinary action – especially in situations where the course of events can be proven only through witness statements.

Anti-discrimination Act disputes: full and final settlements
Denmark | 08 July 2020

The Western High Court recently ruled that an employee who had entered into a severance agreement – and was represented by her professional organisation during this process – was barred from claiming compensation under the Anti-discrimination Act. Pursuant to this ruling, employers should bear in mind that when a severance agreement contains a provision in full and final settlement of any possible claims between the employee and employer, the provision must be interpreted according to its wording.

Coronavirus – enhanced right to receive and be reimbursed for sickness benefits
Denmark | 01 April 2020

A bill amending the Sickness Benefits Act has recently been enacted to mitigate the economic consequences of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic for employers and self-employed persons. The bill extends the scope of employers' right to reimbursement of sickness benefits and self-employed persons' right to receive sickness benefits, provided that the sickness absence is caused by COVID-19.

Reduction of working hours during pregnancy did not constitute gender discrimination
Denmark | 29 January 2020

The Board of Equal Treatment recently concluded that the fact that a replacement worker in a cleaning company had received fewer shifts during her pregnancy did not constitute gender discrimination. The board concluded that the worker had not established any facts that indicated that her pregnancy had been instrumental to the reduction of her working hours or the fact that she had not been permanently employed.