No.07-00-232/2015-02  Date: 3 August 2015

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint lodged by J.M. of B. against the company S.M. Ltd. of N.S, a part of the company being T.S. stores. In the course of the procedure it was established that on 6 December 2014 J.M. submitted a request with the T.S. store in B. for the purchase of a mattress in 12 monthly instalments. Sometime after the submission of the bill of sale and accompanying papers, the bill of sale was returned to her crossed-out and with the following written in hand in the top left corner: “New mothers not eligible. Store notified.” The CEO of S.M. stated in his declaration that J.M. had been denied an instalment purchase plan because it was estimated that her solvency was at risk, not because she was a new mother but because of the company she worked for and her employer’s data. On the other hand, the CEO of S.M. did not deny that the words “New mothers not eligible“ had been written on the bill of sale which was sent back to the complainant but he underlined that the inscription had been written by mistake and therefore could not be considered an official explanation for denying the J.M.’s request. In the course of the procedure it was established that on 6 December 2014 J.M. submitted a request with the T.S. store in B. for the purchase of a mattress in 12 monthly instalments. Looking into the bill of sale no. PJ2-083-2014 of 6 December 2014 it was established that J.M. filled in this form and provided her personal data and the data on the company she worked for. However, sometime after the submission of the bill of sale and accompanying papers, the bill of sale was returned to the complainant crossed-out and with the following written in hand in the top left corner: “New mothers not eligible. Store notified.”The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued the opinion according to which the company S.M. Ltd. of N.S. denied J.M. the right to purchase the product of this company in instalments with an explanation that she was a new mother, thus committing an act of direct discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status. For this reason K.B, CEO of S.M. Ltd. of N.S, was recommended to extend a written apology to J.M. for discriminatory conduct towards her within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the opinion and the accompanying recommendation and to ensure that the company does not violate anti-discrimination legal provisions in the course of its regular affairs and activities.