no. 07-00-573/2020-02 date: 19.7. 2021.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint filed by AA against the employer BB, due to discrimination based on gender and health condition. The complaint states that she has been employed by the employer since June 2020, that her salary under the employment contract is 33,000 dinars, for which amount she was registered, and that the agreement with the employer was that the total salary is 50,000 dinars, while the remaining amount of 17,000 dinars would be paid “directly in cash”. However, after she informed her employer in October 2020 that she was pregnant and that she had to take a sick leave to maintain her pregnancy, the employer did not pay her the agreed amount of 17,000 dinars. Also, the complainant believes that the employer discriminated on the basis of sex because there is a provision in the annex to the employment contract that prescribes the rules for dress code and appearance of employed women. The statement on the complaint states that the complainant concluded an employment contract with the employer, where a salary in the amount of 33,000 dinars was agreed, that the contract was annexed several times, without affecting the issue of compensation and other employee rights, and that this amount was duly paid. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality determined that the complainant had concluded an employment contract with the employer for a definite period of time, starting on May 27, 2020, for the job of salesman. After a three-week training in Novi Sad, she started working in the branch office of the employer in Belgrade, in June 2020. Regarding the allegations from the complaint that the employer did not pay the agreed amount of 17,000 dinars after she took the sick leave due to pregnancy, the Commissioner stated that no evidence was offered for these allegations. Namely, the proposed witnesses did not declare themselves on these circumstances, i.e., they did not submit written statements before the end of the procedure before this body, although they duly received the requests for statement. Having in mind that, for now, there is no evidence to confirm the allegations from the complaint in that part, i.e., that the complainant did not make it probable that the person against whom she filed the complaint acted in a discriminatory manner, the complaint procedure was suspended in that part. The Commissioner further determined that the Annex to the employment contract concluded on June 22, 2020, among other things, prescribed: “Neatly tied hair in a ponytail or loose hair (straightened or ironed), no type of bun allowed; make-up: neat make-up, with obligatory red lipstick, shirt neatly ironed and clean, without traces of powder on it, as far as footwear is concerned, ballet flats or high-heeled shoes are obligatory. Sneakers are not allowed; fingernails always neat”. Having in mind the mentioned provision, as well as the prescribed prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex from Article 20 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, the Commissioner pointed out that the said provision of the Annex to the employment contract (straightened or ironed hair, neat make-up, with obligatory red lipstick) expresses an attitude towards  gender roles of women, i.e., prejudice about the roles of men and women in society, about the subordination and superiority of the sexes. Namely, according to its content, the prescribed provision on dress code and appearance of employed women at the employer represents public advocacy and support of prejudices and social patterns of behavior based on the idea of gender subordination or superiority, i.e., stereotypical gender roles. The Commissioner pointed out that in this way, the message is sent that, when it comes to women, it is not their professional competencies, abilities and work results that are important, but physical appearance, and that this provision reflects the fact that in our society, unlike men, women are reminded every day that the myth of female power is related to thier beauty, charm and femininity. Namely, the stereotypical concept according to which women are the “fairer sex”, and accordingly the physical beauty of a woman is considered her basic “measure of value” and evaluation criterion, is a violation of women’s human dignity, and an indicator that remnants of customs and stereotypical social patterns of behavior that are unfavorable to women are still present in the society. Actions that promote women’s inferiority, their objectification and stereotypes, solely for reasons related to their sex, are contrary to anti-discrimination regulations. Therefore, the Commissioner gave the opinion that by prescribing a provision in the annex to the employment contract on the rules of dress code and appearance of employed women, the employer violated the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. With the opinion, it was recommended that the employer remove the provision from the annex to the employment contract, and to develop a code of equality, in order to raise awareness of the harmful consequences of discrimination and promote equality in their work environment, and to take care in the future not to violate anti-discrimination regulations.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković