Austria / Equal Treatment Commission (Gleichbehandlungskommission), GBK II/484/22 g.
Country
Austria
Title
Austria / Equal Treatment Commission (Gleichbehandlungskommission), GBK II/484/22 g.
View full case
Year
2023
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Monday, September 18, 2023
Incident(s) concerned/related
Discrimination
Related Bias motivation
Racial or ethnic origin
Groups affected
EU citizens/nationals with or without migration history
Court/Body type
High regulatory authority
Court/Body
Equal Treatment Commission, Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft
Key facts of the case
The family of the 15-year-old applicant (Austrian citizen, born and raised in Austria in the second generation) originally comes from Turkey, which is why his migration background is evident in his name. During the application for a trial apprenticeship, he was asked about his nationality and ‘whether he spoke German’. The potential apprenticeship provider informed the 15 year apprenticeship applicant that his name was not a “good one” and that he would have to come up with a name for him that was common in Austria, such as ‘Thomas’. As justification for the name change he wanted, he stated that he could not remember the young person's name. In addition, the potential apprenticeship provider noted that he would not have to explain the name to the Austrian customers of his company.
Main reasoning/argumentation
In the opinion of the Equal Treatment Commission, the connection between the ethnicity and the behaviour of the defendant which violated the dignity of the plaintiff is obvious. The Equal Treatment Commission came to the conclusion that it was no longer reasonable to expect the plaintiff to complete a trial apprenticeship with the defendant. The defendant had therefore made it impossible for the plaintiff to complete the trial apprenticeship he had sought, which is why the Equal Treatment Commission affirmed the existence of discrimination in career counselling on the basis of ethnicity.
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 intention of the perpetrator to discriminate against someone is not decisive for the realisation of the offence of discrimination
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The Equal Treatment Commission proposed that the defendant pay appropriate compensation [not specified, but two months' pay or 500 euros according to the law] and familiarise himself with the Equal Treatment Act. A written report on the implementation of this proposal must be submitted by the employer (in this case: potential apprenticeship provider) to the Senate within two months of notification of the examination results.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"Aufgrund des vom Antragsgegner gesetzten würdeverletzenden Verhaltens war es aus Sicht des Senates dem Antragsteller nicht mehr zumutbar, beim Antragsgegner eine Schnupperwoche zu absolvieren. Im Hinblick auf diesen Umstand wurde daher dem Antragsteller von Seiten des Antragsgegners im Ergebnis die Absolvierung der von ihm angestrebten Schnupperwoche verunmöglicht, sodass auch das Vorliegen einer Diskriminierung bei der Berufsberatung auf Grund der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit [...] zu bejahen war."
"Due to the behaviour of the respondent which violated the dignity of the applicant, it was no longer reasonable for the applicant to complete a trial week with the respondent in the opinion of the Senate. In view of this circumstance, the defendant therefore made it impossible for the applicant to complete the trial week he had sought, so that the existence of discrimination in career counselling on the basis of ethnicity [...] was also to be affirmed."
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.