Torna alla ricerca
Corte App. Firenze, sez. lavoro, 26.2.2025, pres. Papait, est. Rugiu, Consigliera di parità Regione Toscana (avv.te Amoriello, Romoli) c. Y (avv. Iervolino)
| | | |Discriminazione di genere - imposizione di un orario uniforme per tutti i dipendenti – prolungamento della pausa pranzo - effetto svantaggioso per le lavoratrici con esigenze di cura familiare – assenza di prova circa la finalità legittima e l’uso di un mezzo proporzionato e necessario – discriminazione indiretta – sussistenza – conseguente
Costituisce discriminazione indiretta di carattere collettivo l’imposizione, da parte del datore di lavoro, di un regime orario unico per tutti i dipendenti (nella specie prolungando la pausa pranzo e ritardando conseguentemente l’orario di uscita) che non tiene conto delle esigenze delle lavoratrici onerate di esigenze di cura familiare, per rispondere alle quali il tempo della pausa pranzo non può essere considerato - in base al senso comune e all’esperienza di vita – equivalente al tempo libero al termine della giornata lavorativa; in assenza di prova, da parte del datore di lavoro, della finalità legittima perseguita con l’adozione di detto orario uniforme e del suo carattere necessario ed appropriato rispetto alla finalità, il Giudice può ordinare la adozione di un orario idoneo a rispondere a dette esigenze di cura con condanna del datore di lavoro al risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale in favore della Consigliera di parità che ha promosso l’azione.
Gender discrimination - imposition of a uniform timetable for all employees - extension of the lunch break - disadvantageous effect on female workers with family care needs - lack of evidence as to the legitimate aim and use of a proportionate and necessary means - indirect discrimination - existence - consequent
It is indirect discrimination of a collective character for an employer to impose a single time-table system for all employees (in the present case by extending the lunch break and consequently delaying the time of departure) which does not take into consideration the needs of female workers with family care requirements, for whom the time of the lunch break cannot be regarded - in accordance with common sense and the experience of life - as equivalent to the free time at the end of the working day; in the absence of proof, on the part of the employer, of the legitimate aim pursued by the adoption of such a uniform timetable and of its necessary and appropriate nature in relation to that aim, the court may order the adoption of a timetable appropriate to meet those care requirements and order the employer to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favour of the Equal Opportunities Adviser who brought the action.
Gender discrimination - imposition of a uniform timetable for all employees - extension of the lunch break - disadvantageous effect on female workers with family care needs - lack of evidence as to the legitimate aim and use of a proportionate and necessary means - indirect discrimination - existence - consequent
It is indirect discrimination of a collective character for an employer to impose a single time-table system for all employees (in the present case by extending the lunch break and consequently delaying the time of departure) which does not take into consideration the needs of female workers with family care requirements, for whom the time of the lunch break cannot be regarded - in accordance with common sense and the experience of life - as equivalent to the free time at the end of the working day; in the absence of proof, on the part of the employer, of the legitimate aim pursued by the adoption of such a uniform timetable and of its necessary and appropriate nature in relation to that aim, the court may order the adoption of a timetable appropriate to meet those care requirements and order the employer to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favour of the Equal Opportunities Adviser who brought the action.