According to Xiao Yan, there is regional discrimination in the recruitment of employees of Sheraton resort Co., Ltd., which violates Article 3 of the Employment Promotion Law of the peoples Republic of China: employees shall not be discriminated against because of different nationalities, genders, religious beliefs, etc. and Article 26 employers shall provide equal employment opportunities and fair employment to employees when recruiting personnel. The other party was sued to the court according to the stipulation of employment discrimination is not allowed. According to the lawsuit, Yan Xiaozhong requested the court to order the defendant to pay 60000 yuan of spiritual consolation to her; ordered the defendant to make an oral apology to her; the defendant published an apology to her in the peoples daily, Henan Daily and other media for 15 consecutive days since the effective date of the judgment.
On the morning of November 26, 2019, Hangzhou Internet court held a public hearing to hear the case. The court held that the defendant Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd. had the act of employment discrimination, which violated the plaintiffs equal employment opportunities. The court sentenced the defendant Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd. to compensate Xiaoyan for 9000 yuan of spiritual consolation and 10000 yuan of reasonable rights maintenance costs. The court orally apologized to Xiaoyan and publicly published an apology in the Legal Daily.
Both parties refused to accept the first trial decision and the appeal was rejected
On the evening of May 15, the reporter of the Chinese business daily learned from the parties that Xiaoyan and Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd. were not satisfied with the first trial decision after the first trial was pronounced, and both parties appealed.
Xiao Yan thinks that the first trial decision is based on Legal errors, because the victims economic situation, age, gender, social status and other factors, there is no legal basis for discretionary spiritual comfort, and the amount of 9000 yuan for two violations is relatively low. Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd. believes that it has no subjective intention to discriminate against Henan people, because the company has seven registered employees, two of whom are from Henan. The reason why Xiaoyan was not admitted is not that she is from Henan Province, but that her resume does not meet the requirements of working experience of the appellant company. After receiving the summons from the court of first instance, the appellant contacted the appellee as soon as possible, explained the reasons for the operation error of the employees of the appellee, and apologized to the appellee. However, the appellee did not accept it and insisted on settling the dispute through litigation.
The court of second instance confirmed the facts identified in the first instance. Hangzhou intermediate peoples court held that the right to equal employment, as a basic right granted to workers by law, is the specific embodiment of the principle of equality before the law in the field of labor and employment. In fact, the essence of the right is that workers can choose their own employer and obtain equal employment opportunities and corresponding treatment, regardless of their nationality, race and gender And religious beliefs. If the employer treats the employee differently based on the inherent factors that are not necessarily related to the internal requirements of the work, such as the sex, household registration and appearance of the employee, but not the acquired factors that are closely related to the internal requirements of the work, such as education background and work experience, without any justifiable reason, it shall be deemed as employment discrimination. Although the employer enjoys the right of self-determination of useful persons, the equal employment right is the premise of the survival and development of the workers and the place of the general personality right of the workers. The employer should always abide by the boundary of the right to exercise the right of self-determination of the employers, and shall not infringe the equal employment right of the workers in the way of employment discrimination.
Hangzhou intermediate peoples court held that the refusal of Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd. to offer an employment opportunity to Yan Mou on the basis of Henan people has constituted employment discrimination, which has damaged Yan Mous personal dignity as a worker. According to the original judgment, it should be considered appropriate for the company to constitute an infringement of Yan Mous equal employment right. In addition, the court of first instance determined that Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd. should pay 9000 yuan as compensation for Yans mental damage, and support his reasonable rights protection expenditure of 1000 yuan, which is in line with the relevant provisions of law and judicial interpretation There is nothing wrong. In order to eliminate the adverse effects caused by the infringement of Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd., the court of first instance decided that it was also appropriate for the company to make an oral apology to Yan and publish an apology in the national media.
Hangzhou intermediate peoples court holds that the facts of the original judgment are clear, the applicable law is correct and the entity is handled properly. On May 15, Hangzhou intermediate peoples court ruled as follows: it rejected the appeal of Yan and Zhejiang Sheraton resort Co., Ltd., and upheld the original judgment.
Xiaoyan told the Chinese business daily that the court of second instance has never been improper in maintaining the first trial. Although there is no improper result, the process of applying the law and the protection of the parties suffering mental damage should be strengthened.