OPINION

This opinion was issued in the proceedings upon the complaint filed by A. Ć. from B. against Association “C. s. ž” B, on grounds of discrimination based on gender. The complaint stated that an advertisement of the Association “C. s. ž” B was published on the Internet portal www.com. With the following content: “a person with excellent computer skills and basic (and preferably higher) English proficiency is required as a full-time work assistant to a disabled person.” It was further stated that after applying for the job as a work assistant, the complainant was rejected, on the grounds that female persons had priority. In its statement, the Association specified that their advertisement was for the job of “personal/work assistant” and that the term “work assistant” is used as just one element of the work of a personal assistant. It was further stated that the advertisement was published for the assistant of a particular woman with severe physical disability, who, in addition to assistance with work, needed other types of support, including support in meeting personal needs, and that she insisted on having a female person as an assistant for upholding her dignity, safety and security and a greater sense of comfort. It is also stated that differentiating by gender when choosing a personal/work assistant in this case does not represent placing a person in an unequal position, since in this case gender as a personal property is a constitutive element of the job advertised. In the course of the procedure, it was determined that this was a job vacancy for a working assistant to a particular female disabled person, who expressed a desire to have a female person as assistant for upholding her dignity, safety and security and greater sense of comfort. It was further found that, in this specific case, the gender of the personal assistant is a real and decisive condition for carrying out the job of a work assistant, and that the purpose to be achieved by the election of a female person as a work assistant under this advertisement is justified in accordance with the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination and the Labor Law. Therefore, in this particular case, the Commissioner gave the opinion that the Association “C. s. ž” B. did not violate the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković