The plaintiff alleged that in June 2014, she saw the recruiting advertisement of the respondent on the Internet, knowing that the respondent want to recruit two copywriters. Guo submitted her resume accordingly. However, Guo has not got reply since then. With the certainty that she is capable of the position, Guo called the School, asking about the job. Guo was told that since the position requires many business trips, only male can be considered. Guo emphasized that she can adjust to those business trips but was still refused by the same reason. Guo therefore brought this lawsuit on the basis that the respondent’s action is in violation of Article 3 of Employment Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China, which requires that “Workers shall be entitled by law to enjoy the right to equal employment and to seek their own employment. No worker seeking employment shall suffer discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, race, gender or religious belief.” The respondent argues that because of the specialty of the position, the copywriter should live in the same room with the president of the school, all of whom are male, while during the business trips. It is out of the consideration and care to the plaintiff that they did not recruit her. The court finds that since the respondent did not provide any evidence to prove the specialty of the position and the legal reasons for the unsuitability of female worker, it violates the accorded rule: Article 3, 12, 13 of Labor Law, which states “Labourers shall have equal right to employment and choice of occupation”, “Labourers, regardless of their ethnic group, race, sex, or religious belief, shall not be discriminated against in employment”, “Women shall enjoy the equal right, with men, to employment”.
性别歧视，就业歧视
原告称，2014年6月，自己在网上看到被告要招两名文案的招聘信息。原告在网上投递了简历。原告一直没有等来被告的回复。原告认为自己的各项条件均符合其工作所需，于是打电话询问应聘情况。被告工作人员答复说，他们的文案职位仅招男性，因为需要出差。原告告知自己完全可以胜任出差，于是不甘心又到被告招聘现场去应聘，依然被以同样理由拒绝。原告称，依据中华人民共和国就业促进法第三条，劳动者享有平等就业的权利，国家保障妇女享有与男子平等的劳动权利，而被告违反了这项法律。被告称该次招聘的岗位具有特殊性，出差住宿时必须与校长住一间标准间，而被告校长均为男性。基于公序良俗，被告没有录取原告。法院认为，被告未举证证明该岗位属于法律、法规所规定的女职工禁忌从事的工作，被告违反了《中华人民共和国劳动法》第三条、第十二条、第十三条劳动者享有平等就业权利的规定。
Year
Institution
External URL
- Type
- Jurisdiction