| |||||||||
    |
|||||||||
 |
Version for print Change font size
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
The Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation has ceased to exist. On 1 January 2009 the Ombudsman was merged with the other Ombudsmen against discrimination into a new body: the Swedish Equality Ombudsman. The previously existing acts against discrimination were also replaced with a new Discrimination Act. Some of the material on this website may therefore be out of date. For more information, see: www.do.se
Taxi company – Discrimination – Probationary employment A taxi company employed a woman on a trial basis in the spring of 2002. In the course of the employment interview, she was completely frank about her homosexual orientation, and a few weeks later she entered into a relationship with another female employee of the company concerned. Subsequently, the woman and her girlfriend were summoned by their team leader for discussion since there had been complaints about the way in which the couple handled their relationship at their place of work. The couple was very upset by this criticism since they had been careful not to “advertise” their relationship in front of their colleagues. In May 2002, the woman was informed that she could not continue to work for the company. Negotiations about this dispute were held at a central level between the woman’s trade union and the employer, but a solution could not be reached. The union subsequently informed the Ombudsman that it had decided not to pursue the case in the Labour Court. In response to the complaint to the Ombudsman, the taxi company stated that the reason why the woman’s employment was terminated was not related to her sexual orientation, but was due to other reasons. After the discussion with the team leader, the woman was alleged to have adopted a negative attitude to most aspects of the company’s operations. She also insisted on being told which colleagues had views about her behaviour. When she was not given this information she nonetheless confronted a person who she believed might have been responsible. Ultimately, the company was unable to accept the woman’s behaviour at her workplace. In the course of an overall assessment of all the circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that there were insufficient grounds for initiating proceedings in the Labour Court. As a result, the Ombudsman closed the case and decided that no further steps should be taken. (Decision of 15 April 2003, Dossier No. 224/02) |
|
|
|
|
|
HomO | Box 3327, 103 66 Stockholm | E-mail: homo@homo.se | Phone: +46 (0)8 508 887 80 | Fax: +46 (0)8 508 887 90 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||
