Denmark / The Board of Equal Treatment / Jr. nr. 21-30929

Country

Denmark

Title

Denmark / The Board of Equal Treatment / Jr. nr. 21-30929

View full Case

Year

2022

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, December 07, 2022

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

eu citizens & nationals with migrant background

Court/Body type

National Human Rights Body

Court/Body

Ligebehandlingsnævnet (The Board of Equal Treatment)

Key facts of the case

The case concerned whether af woman was discriminated against based on her ethnicity by the municipal administration in relation to their ruling on sickness benefits. The administration had asked questions regarding the women's Turkish origin which was considered as discrimination by the Board.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Board ruled that the questions related the women's etnic origin was irrelevant to the evaluation of the women's capacity to work.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The case provided clearance on what constitutes discriminatory practices in individual case management by the municipal administration in realtion to the payment of sick benefits.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Board ruled that the municipality had harrassed the woman due to her ethnic origin by asking her irrelevant questions related to her ethnicity. The women was granted a compensation on 10.000 DKK.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

DK: "Nævnet vurderer på den baggrund, at den indklagede kommune ikke i tilstrækkeligt omfang har godtgjort, at alle de stillede spørgsmål havde relevans for vurderingen af klagers uarbejdsdygtighed.". EN: "On this background the Board comes to the conclusions that the municipal administration did not provide sufficient evidence that the questions was of relevans to the complainant's ability to work."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.