2023-05-23 18:58:00
He social court number 3 of León has ordered a company to pay compensation of 7.501 euros and reinstate a worker, after dismissing him for being Gypsy. “Since you’ve been here, gypsies don’t stop coming in when they used to come from time to time […] and that’s not good for business,” his boss reproached him, as denounced by the victim during the trial. The magistrate has considered proven a violation of the Fundamental rights of the victim and has ruled, consequently, that the termination of the employee was null, as has been made public by the Gypsy Secretariat Foundation (FSG) in a statement on Tuesday.
Any dismissal motivated by a person’s gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or racial or ethnic origin is considered in the Spanish legal system as a violation of the fundamental rights of the victim. Also, for example, firing a woman for the fact that she is pregnant or, more recently, for laying off a worker due to being sick.
A qualified dismissal of ‘null‘ entails the obligation for the company to reinstate the worker, pay him the salary that he should have been receiving from the moment of termination until reinstatement and, in addition, to pay him compensation for the damage caused. This varies depending on what the plaintiff claims, the damage caused and the interpretation that the competent judge ends up making. In the case of this waiter settled by the magistrate of León, 7,501 euros. An amount equivalent to a fine for a serious offense in Social Security matters.
The facts judged refer to the case of a waiter de León, with a 30-hour weekly contract and a salary of 1,132 euros gross. The man goes to work in a bar and at first the relationship with the owner of the bar is “wonderful”, as explained by the dismissed in the trial. However, this changes as soon as she finds out that he is a gypsy. “You have to read more and apply yourself to your studies instead of sitting down with cousins to take high chairs and play guitars,” the victim told the judge.
Subsequently, several people that the owner of the bar identified as gypsies began to frequent her premises. “You see why I don’t want gypsies working here; before, they came from time to time and now often and that’s not good for business,” she told the dismissed man, according to what he denounced before the judge.
The company gave up to three different versions
The company fires him and to save the settlement alleges that the worker has left on his own foot and initiative, thus causing voluntary redundancy. During the trial, the company could not provide any document signed by the worker that showed that he had requested his voluntary leave. And he contradicts his own version, claiming before the magistrate that he had not actually requested voluntary discharge, but rather that they had fired him for not passing the trial period. Neither did he notify Social Security of said reason when activating the discharge.
Related news
And in court, the owner of the premises contradicted herself again, assuring that in reality the reason for the dismissal was that the waiter had not shown up for work for a week. When the same owner acknowledges that at the end of said week she communicates to her employee in person that he is fired from her. A witness presented by the waiter affirms that he went to look for him at work the day before the dismissal, something that he remembers “very well” because he cost him “a fight” with his wife.
The magistrate considers that the multiple contradictions of the businesswoman regarding the reason and formula for the dismissal, added to the “hostile climate” that the worker perceived due to his racial condition, are “sufficient indications of the discrimination suffered by him in the extinction action,” according to pick up the sentence.
#good #business