sou · GNB391 · 2000-01-01 00:00:00 — In one case from Court of , a comparison person of the opposite sex in conjunction with direct discrimination related to employment was not required. According to the three new discrimination Acts, a fictitious comparison can be made in conjunction with a determination of whether a person has been subjected to direct discrimination. Insofar as the requirement for a comparison person is concerned, the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's prohibition against discrimination in conjunction with employment cannot be said to comply with EC law. therefore considers that the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's prohibition against discrimination in conjunction with employment should be worded in such a that no requirement for a comparison person is imposed in conjunction with direct discrimination. Consequently, a corresponding amendment should be effected with respect to work management pursuant to § 19 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women. Conversely, it cannot be considered to be inconsistent with EC law to impose a requirement for a comparison person in conjunction with wage discrimination. does not propose any amendments in this regard. As is the case pursuant to EC law, it should be possible to make a comparison even with a former employee of the opposite sex. In conjunction with indirect discrimination, on the other hand, an actual comparison between groups must be performed pursuant to EC law. Similarly, this also applies pursuant to the new discrimination Acts. The prohibition against discrimination in the three new discrimination Acts protects employment applicants during the entire recruitment process and without a requirement that a decision regarding employment is taken. In the Committee's opinion, one can assume that EC law does not impose any requirement for an employment decision in order for illegal sex discrimination to exist. In order to guarantee an accord with EC law, the Committee considers that the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's prohibition against discrimination in conjunction with employment should also cover situations where the employer does not take any decision regarding employment. This means that an employer which discontinues the employment process, e.g. because the employer does not wish to employ an applicant of a certain sex, can be liable for illegal sex discrimination. Are the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's presumption rules consistent with EC law and the burden of proof directive? – proposes that the current §§ 16, 19 and 20 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women be amended and be consolidated into a new § 16. The amendment entails that the presumption rules in conjunction with employment, promotion, training for promotion and work management, and evidence rule in conjunction with termination, redeployment, lay-offs and dismissal be formulated as a uniform burden of proof rule in accordance with the burden of proof directive. Additionally, the Committee proposes that § 17 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women be repealed. The effect of the EC's burden of proof directive and the three new discrimination Acts is that when the employee has established a prima facie case of discrimination the burden of proof shifts to the employer. The question is whether the burden of proof directive's burden of proof rule is equally advantageous, or more advantageous, to the employee. There is, however, no legal method by which one can compare the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's presumption rules with the burden of proof directive. Thus, since it cannot be demonstrated with any certainty that the rules of presumption with respect to the prohibition against sex discrimination in conjunction with employment and work management provide a more effective or, in any case, equally effective alleviation in the burden of proof for the plaintiff as the burden of proof directive provides, there are very strong reasons for this rule, in one form or another, being applicable in Swedish discrimination litigation. The Committee considers that the presumption rule in respect of the prohibition against discrimination in conjunction with employment, etc. and in conjunction with work management within the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women be reworded in order to be in agreement with the burden of proof directive. This means that the Committee is of the opinion that § 17 should be repealed. For drafting reasons, the prohibitions against discrimination in the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women should be incorporated into one paragraph which is drafted in accordance with the burden of proof directive and which does not contain any requirement for an employment decision or a comparison person. The rule of presumption in the wage discrimination prohibition in § 18 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women cannot be considered as being stricter than EC law, but rather may be considered to be in agreement therewith. As such, this means that, in the Committee's opinion, it cannot at all be argued that § 18 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women needs amending in order to achieve accordance with EC law. proposes, therefore, that the wage discrimination prohibition set forth in § 18 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women not be amended. Pursuant to EC law, the Member States are obligated to take appropriate, effective measures in order for the objective of the directives in the area of equality to be achieved. General damages to several persons who have been discriminated against in connection with employment or promotion or training for promotion are apportioned equally between them pursuant to the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women. The three new discrimination Acts contain no corresponding limitation regarding apportionment of damages. Economic damages are not paid to the person who has been the subject of discrimination in conjunction with an employment process or in conjunction with promotion or training for promotion, neither pursuant to the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women nor the three new discrimination Acts. Is there reason to amend the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's rules related to general damages? – proposes that the general damages to several persons who have been discriminated against should not be apportioned equally between them, but rather be paid to each of the persons discriminated against taking into consideration the injury which they have suffered. The Committee considers that it is important to emphasise the fact that damages which are paid to a person who has been discriminated against primarily comprise individual compensation to such person for the specific injury which he or she has suffered. It should also be stressed that the preventative function of the general damages will best be achieved through a system whereby the amount of the damages when several persons are discriminated against are determined on the basis of the actual discriminatory acts perpetrated against each of the persons concerned. The fact that the Committee proposes that the prohibition against discrimination pursuant to the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women cover the entire employment process also militates a system of apportioned damages since discrimination can occur to several persons, on different occasions and in different ways. A rule that general damages shall be apportioned equally between the several persons discriminated against cannot reasonably be maintained unamended in the changed situation which will arise if the Committee's proposals are approved. Thus, the Committee proposes that the rule regarding apportioned damages should be repealed and that each of the persons discriminated against should receive damages taking into consideration the injury suffered by such person. With respect to general damages otherwise, it is stated in the preparatory works to the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women that the basis for such shall be the case law related to damages established in company law and employment protection cases. The EC law's requirement that the Member States must take effective measures in order for the object of the directive to be achieved is, in the Committee's view, fulfilled by the fact that the Swedish courts have to apply the same calculation principles with respect to damages in conjunction with discrimination as apply pursuant to other domestic employment law rules. The Committee considers that the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's rules regarding general damages are otherwise in compliance with EC law. Is there reason to amend the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's rules in respect of economic damages? – does not propose any amendment of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's rules in respect of economic damages. In the Committee's opinion, the present system pursuant to the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women whereby only general damages, and thus not economic damages, can be paid to the person who has been subject to discrimination in connection with employment, promotion, or training for promotion should remain in force. The Committee considers that the legislation is in accordance with EC law. The legislation is also in accord with that which applies pursuant to the three new discrimination Acts. In the Committee's opinion, the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women's rules related to damages are also otherwise consistent with EC law. Wage surveys and the trade unions' need for access to particular individuals' wages – proposes that the object of wage surveys be clarified in the preparatory works. In the Committee's opinion, the objective shall be to elucidate how the wages for different categories of employees in different types of work relate to each other when gender is taken into consideration. The surveys shall, thus, form the basis for more work with respect to these issues. proposes that an express responsibility for the employer to analyse occurring wage disparities be incorporated into the Act's section regarding measures. Additionally, the Committee proposes that employers be obligated to consult with unions regarding the in which the survey work will be conducted and inform such unions regarding the wage survey work and the employers' analysis thereof. The Committee considers that the statements in the preparatory works regarding the objective of wage surveys have created confusion, and it is important that a clarification be made in this regard. The object of wage surveys, in the Committee's opinion, must be to clarify how the wages for different categories of employees in different types of work relate to each other when gender is taken into consideration and, in this context, to form a basis for more work with respect to these issues. In the preparatory works to the Act, it is stated that the intention of wage surveys is not that the employer is to make any systematic work evaluation. The legislature, however, assumes that wage surveys, to the most practical degree, should lead to the identification of employees who perform jobs which are to be considered as equal or of equal value at a workplace. proposes no amendments with regard to these matters. In order to increase the effectiveness of the Act and for comparisons between different groups and categories of employees to take place, the Committee proposes that an express obligation for employers to analyse occurring wage disparities be incorporated into the Act. Additionally, the Committee proposes that employers be obligated to consult with trade unions regarding the in which surveys will be conducted and to inform trade unions regarding the wage survey work and the employers' analysis of wage disparities. The Committee considers that the object of wage surveys can be promoted through employees taking part in the surveys to a greater extent. does not propose that the trade unions, in conjunction with their co-operation with employers regarding wage surveys, be permitted to review individual persons' wages. A review of specific individuals' wages, in the opinion of the Committee, means that the process is transformed into wage setting. Standing regarding injunctions subject to conditional fines – proposes that trade unions, with which employers have executed collective agreements, shall have standing before the Equal Opportunities Tribunal and the Discrimination Tribunal regarding injunctions subject to conditional fines. The Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and the Office of the Ethnic Discrimination Ombudsman should be afforded the possibility to comment and also be entitled, when the ombudsman finds cause for such, to intervene in a matter concerning a proceeding brought by a trade union before the tribunals. In addition, the Committee proposes that the trade union which brought an action for the imposition of an injunction also have standing in the District Court for the execution of a fine pursuant to such injunction The Committee considers that the trade unions' standing regarding the imposition of injunctions before the Equal Opportunities Tribunal and the Discrimination Tribunal can stimulate and vitalise the local work and, for the trade unions, result in an increased adoption of responsibility for equality work. The fact that it is the parties on the labour market which have primary responsibility for the work towards equality is of great significance for the issue of affording trade unions standing. Thus, it should be these parties who primarily take action. Where a union brings an action, the Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and the Office of the Ethnic Discrimination Ombudsman should be entitled to comment and, where the ombudsman at such time, or at a later time, finds it necessary, even be entitled to intervene. Where the union, upon enquiry from the ombudsman, has abstained from commencing an action, the union should not be entitled to comment or take part in the matter as an intervener. Issues which are related to work assessment – proposes a rule be incorporated into § 33 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women such that the Equal Opportunity Ombudsman has the right to enter the workplace in order to perform investigations. The report which forms the basis of the court's adjudication in the wage discrimination litigation should appropriately be submitted by the individual parties themselves. Not least in light of the fact that work evaluation is somewhat imprecise and subjective, the Committee considers that it is not appropriate for a third party expert appointed by the court to be engaged. does not present any proposals in this regard. develops in its report an opinion on the evidentiary requirements in wage discrimination litigation with regard to the issue of whether the different work is of equal value. Primarily, the Committee's analysis reveals that the principal burden of proof with respect to the circumstances which are significant for the evaluation of work in fact falls on the plaintiff. The employer, as the party who can most easily present evidence concerning circumstances related to the workplace must, however, bear a certain part of the burden of proof. In this , a reduced burden of proof, which otherwise can tend to be all too heavy, is achieved for the plaintiff. The Committee considers that such a system follows directly from the general evidence rules and is in with the EC's burden of proof directive. Thus there is no need for any re-drafting of the legislation. Concerning the employer's duty to provide information pursuant to the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women, the Committee proposes that a rule which affords the Equal Opportunity Ombudsman the right to enter the workplace in order to perform investigations of significance to work evaluation be incorporated into § 33 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women. is not of the opinion that § 18 of the Act Concerning Equality Between Men and Women should contain detailed provisions as to what is required in order for work to be considered to be of equal value. Lag om ändring i jämställdhetslagen (1991:433) dels att 17, 19 och 20 §§ skall upphöra att gälla, dels att 9 a, 11, 15, 16, 18, 25, 26, 33, 35 och 44 §§ samt rubriken närmast före 16 § skall ha följande lydelse, dels att det i lagen skall införas tre nya paragrafer, 9 b §, 16 a § och 35 a § av följande lydelse. Arbetsgivaren skall, som ett led i verksamheten enligt 2 §, kartlägga förekomsten av löneskillnader mellan kvinnor och män i skilda typer av arbeten och för olika kategorier av arbetstagare. mellan kvinnor och män som Denna skyldighet gäller dock inte arbetsgivare som vid senaste än tio arbetstagare. om tio arbetstagare. 9 b § Arbetsgivare som är skyl- dig att kartlägga och analysera enligt 9 a § skall samråda med hållande till vilken arbets- givaren är bunden av kollektiv- avtal om hur kartläggnings- mationen skall ske vid samman- En jämställdhetsplan enligt 10 § skall innehålla en översikt över de åtgärder enligt 4 9 §§ som är behövliga på arbetsplatsen och ange vilka av dessa åtgärder som arbetsgivaren avser att påbörja eller genomföra . I planen skall också översikt- I planen skall också översikt- ligt redovisas resultatet av den ligt redovisas resultatet av den 9 a § samt de arbetsgivaren skall göra enligt åtgärder som motiveras av kart- 9 a §. Arbetsgivare skall även i planen redovisa de åtgärder och kartläggningen samt tidsplanen för analysen. En redovisning av hur de planerade åtgärderna enligt första och andra styckena har genomförts skall tas in i efterföljande års plan. Nuvarande lydelse Föreslagen lydelse Direkt och indirekt könsdiskriminering Med könsdiskriminering avses i denna lag att någon missgynnas under sådana omständigheter att missgynnandet har ett direkt eller in- direkt samband med den missgynnades könstillhörighet. större andel personer av det ena könet missgynnas genom till- ett skenbart könsneutralt krite- rium eller förfaringssätt. låten i den utsträckning som låten i den utsträckning framgår av 16 20 §§. framgår av 16, 16 a och 18 §§. 16 § Otillåten könsdiskrimine- ring skall anses föreligga, när en arbetsgivare vid anställning eller befordran eller utbildning för be- fordran utser någon framför någon annan av motsatt kön, fastän den som förbigås har bättre sakliga förutsättningar för arbetet eller utbildningen. Detta gäller dock inte om arbetsgivaren kan visa ring skall anses föreligga när den som anser sig kränkt visar att omständigheter föreligger som ger anledning till antagande att könsdiskriminering förekommit. Detta gäller dock inte om arbetsgivaren kan visa att för- farandet 1.att beslutet inte vare sig direkt eller indirekt har samband med den missgynnades könstill- hörighet, 2.att beslutet är ett led i strä- vanden att främja jämställdhet i arbetslivet, eller 3.att det är berättigat av hänsyn till ett sådant ideellt eller annat särskilt intresse som uppenbarligen inte bör vika för intresset av jämställdhet i arbetslivet. 1.saknar samband med den missgynnades könstillhörighet, 2.är ett led i strävanden att främja jämställdhet i arbetslivet, 3.är berättigat av hänsyn till ett sådant ideellt eller annat sär- skilt intresse som uppenbarligen inte bör vika för intresset av jämställdhet i arbetslivet, eller 4.vid indirekt diskriminering är lämpligt och nödvändigt och kan motiveras med objektiva faktorer som saknar samband med könstillhörighet. 16 a § Bestämmelserna i 16 § gäller när arbetsgivaren 1.tar ut en arbetssökande till anställningsintervju eller vidtar annan åtgärd under anställ- ningsförfarandet eller beslutar i en anställningsfråga, 2.beslutar om befordran eller tar ut arbetstagare till ut- bildning för befordran, 3.leder och fördelar arbetet, 4.säger upp, avskedar, per- mitterar eller vidtar annan in- gripande åtgärd mot en arbets- tagare. Otillåten könsdiskriminering skall anses föreligga, när en arbetsgivare tillämpar lägre lön eller annars sämre anställningsvillkor för en arbetstagare än dem som arbetsgivaren tillämpar för arbetstagare av motsatt kön, när de utför arbete som är att betrakta som lika eller lik- värdigt. Detta gäller dock inte, om gäller dock inte om arbetsgivaren kan visa att de arbetsgivaren kan visa att förfa- randet är lämpligt och nödvän- digt och kan motiveras med sakliga förutsättningar för arbe- tet eller att de i varje fall inte samband med könstillhörighet. vare sig direkt eller indirekt har Skadestånd och andra påföljder Om könsdiskriminering sker genom att arbetsgivaren på något sätt som är otillåtet enligt 16 eller 17 § utser någon eller några framför en eller flera av motsatt kön, skall arbetsgivaren betala skadestånd till den eller de diskriminerade för den kränkning som diskrimineringen innebär. Om flera diskriminerade i ett sådant fall begär skadestånd, skall skadeståndet bestämmas som om bara en av dem hade blivit diskriminerad samt delas lika mellan dem. Om könsdiskriminering sker på något sätt som är otillåtet enligt 16 a § 1 och 2, skall arbetsgivaren betala skadestånd till den eller de diskriminerade för den kränkning som diskrimi- neringen innebär. Om en arbetstagare diskrimi- neras på något sätt som är otill- låtet enligt 18 20 §§, skall arbetsgivaren betala skadestånd till arbetstagaren för den förlust som uppkommer och för den kränkning som diskrimineringen innebär. Om en arbetstagare diskrimi- neras på något sätt som är otill- låtet enligt 16 a § 3 och 4 eller enligt 18 §, skall arbetsgivaren betala skadestånd till arbetstaga- ren för den förlust som upp- kommer och för den kränkning som diskrimineringen innebär. Tillsynen av lagens efterlevnad En arbetsgivare är skyldig att på uppmaning av jämställdhetsom- budsmannen lämna de uppgifter om förhållandena i arbetsgivarens verksamhet som kan vara av betydelse för ombudsmannens tillsyn enligt 30 §. För tillsyn har jämställd- hetsombudsmannen tillträde till arbetsställe och får där göra undersökningar. En arbetsgivare som inte följer en föreskrift som anges i 4 11 §§ kan vid vite föreläggas att fullgöra sina skyldigheter. Ett sådant föreläggande meddelas av jämställdhetsnämnden på fram- ställning av jämställdhetsom- budsmannen. En arbetsgivare som inte följer en föreskrift som anges i 4 11 §§ kan vid vite föreläggas att fullgöra sina skyldigheter. Ett sådant föreläggande meddelas av jämställdhetsnämnden på fram- ställning av jämställdhetsom- budsmannen eller en arbets- tagarorganisation i förhållande till vilken arbetsgivaren är bun- den av kollektivavtal. Ombudsmannen skall i fram- ställningen ange vilka åtgärder som bör åläggas arbetsgivaren, vilka skäl som åberopas till stöd för framställningen och vilken utredning som har gjorts. Ombudsmannen eller ar- betstagarorganisationen skall i framställningen ange vilka åt- gärder som bör åläggas arbets- givaren, vilka skäl som åberopas till stöd för framställningen och vilken utredning som har gjorts. 35 a § När en arbetstagar- organisation gjort en fram- ställning till jämställdhets- nämnden enligt 35 § skall jämställdhetsombudsmannen beredas tillfälle att yttra sig. Om ombudsmannen finner skäl där- till äger myndigheten delta i ärendet som intervenient med ställning av part. Talan om utdömande av vite som har förelagts enligt denna lag förs vid tingsrätt av jäm- ställdhetsombudsmannen. Talan om utdömande av vite som har förelagts enligt denna lag förs vid tingsrätt av jäm- ställdhetsombudsmannen eller av arbetstagarorganisation som gjort framställning om vites- föreläggande enligt 35 §. Denna lag träder i kraft . Lag om ändring i lagen (1999:130) om åtgärder mot etnisk diskriminering dels att 26 och 35 §§ skall ha följande lydelse, dels att det i lagen införs en ny paragraf, 26 a §, av följande lydelse.