A care assistant was treated in a sexually offensive manner by a disabled individual for whom she had been hired to care. The Eastern High Court determined that the care assistant's employer was not responsible for the disabled individual's behaviour, but that her subsequent dismissal contravened the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women.
Against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, Parliament adopted a bill to amend the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women. Now, the social partners and the Danish Working Environment Authority have joined forces to launch the 'Where's the limit?' campaign, which aims to prevent unacceptable and offensive conduct in the workplace and create a working environment that is free from sexual harassment.
The Western High Court recently found that the dismissal of an employee who had called in sick on the first day after a period of childbirth-related leave and holiday did not contravene the Act on the Equal Treatment of Men and Women. The judgment exemplifies that if an employee's dismissal has a close temporal connection with their return from childbirth-related leave, this does not automatically raise a presumption of discrimination.
The Supreme Court recently held that an employer had been unjustified to summarily dismiss an employee with retroactive effect after discovering that he had covertly recorded a conversation with his manager. The court had to decide whether the employee's secret audio recording could be regarded as a material breach of the employment relationship and justify summary dismissal.
The Board of Equal Treatment recently found that an amendment to a university lecturer's homeworking agreement and her subsequent termination did not conflict with the Anti-discrimination Act. The board held that there had been no indirect discrimination against the lecturer on the grounds of her national or ethnic origin, as it was her choice of residence rather than her ethnic or national origin that had given rise to the situation that led to her termination.
The Supreme Court recently examined whether the dismissal of a disabled employee from a publicly funded, reduced-hours job when he reached the mandatory retirement age – and the public funding lapsed – violated the Anti-discrimination Act. The court found that the employer's receipt of a subsidy from the local authorities for the reduced-hours job had to be regarded as a clear condition of employment and that the basis of employment had thus lapsed when the wage subsidy ended.