District Court

That female candidates should be sought in addition to male, was neither the specific ad text nor an additional abbreviation (m/w). After the application of the applicant had not come to fruition, the applicant promptly filed a compensation claim in the amount of less than 25,000.00, urging responsible law firm for the ad, to call her their clients. Only according to information lawsuit antragsgemasser conviction by the District Court of Karlsruhe and subsequent foreclosure law firm revealed the name of the company, which had granted the contract for the job. The compensation claim submitted subsequently to the defendant of illegal discrimination under 15 para 2, 11, 7, 1, 2 para 1 S. 1, 22 AGG was dismissed by Karlsruhe Regional Court. On the appeal of the applicant and the OLG Karlsruhe said the applicant’s total compensation amounting to a gross monthly salary of 13.257,36 to and justified his decision, that the vacancy against the prohibition of discrimination in the General equal treatment Act ( 7 AGG) contrary.

The vacancy not gender-neutral lead become suspects discrimination because of sex, and therefore the issuing company must demonstrate that the applicant had not been disadvantaged because of her sex, so that the gender of the applicant in the selection at all had played no role in accordance with 22 AGG. The defendant did not set out the relevant considerations for your selection. The fact that an other applicant to an interview had been invited, by dint of the presumption of a gender-related discrimination in the application procedure does not disprove. Also the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff was not been invited not because of her gender, but because of the lack of experience of the acquisition. could not refute the presumption. Thus, it was not proven that the sex in addition to acquisition may be lack of experience of the applicant in the decision had played no role.

Comments are closed.