Pregnant employees or employees returning from maternity leave are still too often victims of discrimination at work, the Defender of Rights expressed concern on Monday, March 7, which publishes a “legal guide” to remind women that the law protects them.
“We still make too many decisions where women are not hired because they are pregnant, do not find their job when they return from maternity leave, or whose trial period is terminated because they are pregnant. », critical in a press release the Defender of Rights, Claire Hédon.
Of approximately 7,000 referrals received last year for cases of discrimination, 3.2% “was due to pregnancy”. “Many believe that this type of discrimination is over, but in fact it is still very significant,” abounds Mathilde Zylberberg, responsible for employment issues at the Defender of Rights.
By publishing a legal guide (available here) on these issues, the institution hopes that women will be able to “be aware that they are discriminated against”. Those who seize the Defender of Rights or the courts are only the “tip of the iceberg”, because many give up complaining for fear of losing their jobs, adds Mme Zylberberg.
No right to question a candidate about a present or desired pregnancy
The legal guide published on Monday, on the eve of International Women’s Day, reviews a large number of situations where employees can be harmed because they are expecting a child or have taken maternity leave, and recalls all the prohibitions weighing on the employer.
This one has no right “to question a candidate about her present or future pregnancy”, to refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy, nor to dismiss an employee because she is pregnant. In the latter case, an exception is provided for in the event of serious fault on the part of the person concerned, but this fault must still not be linked to the pregnancy: in other words, “certain behaviors such as fatigue or irritability which are related to pregnancy are not accepted reasons” for dismissal.
In some cases, the employee may be justified in claiming in court that she has suffered a form of discriminatory harassment: for example, if the management has suddenly changed its attitude towards her after the announcement of her pregnancy, multiplying the reproaches against him and the destabilizing meetings.
In civil matters (before the industrial tribunal), the burden of proof is reversed, underline the authors of the legal guide: the employee does not have to provide indisputable proof of the alleged discrimination, but only to create a “reasonable doubt” in the mind of the judge.