European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) This Thursday rejected the request of the dismissed Spanish domestic worker Since 2003, he was diagnosed with frequent absenteeism due to chronic migraine.
Gloria Raventós Martínez (Gloria Raventós Martínez) was born in 1967 and now lives in Barcelona, Sant Vicenç del Horts (Barcelona). He started working in private in 2007. Worked at company GG, and later at C. Submitted a medical report from the San Juan Di Dios Hospital on his illness.
Between March 2013 and May 2013, applicants were absent six times, for a total of fifteen days.. On June 12, 2013, according to Article 52(d) of the Workers Law, he was informed that the contract had been terminated for objective reasons.
According to the company, Raventós’ absenteeism rate within two months was 38.46%, while the annual absenteeism rate was 14.67%.
The Barcelona Social Court No. 33 ruled in favor of Raventós and declared “Discriminatory and ineffective” dismissal, And added that the above clause does not apply to the plaintiff’s disease classified as disability.
The company appealed to the Catalan High Court, which set aside the first-instance ruling in 2014 and concluded that: The dismissal was “not because of his illness, but because of some frequent short-term absences.”
In addition, he accepted “Only three of the six absentees considered were due to migraines” And rule out discrimination in dismissal. Therefore, the High Court and the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
Since his dismissal, a committee of three judges of the European Court of Human Rights has rejected his request, including the Spanish María Elósegui (María Elósegui) “This is based solely on their absenteeism rate, not the alleged difference in treatment. This may lead to discrimination complaints. “
Regarding the inadmissibility of the Constitutional Court, because “No violation of any fundamental rights”The Strasbourg court concluded that the Spanish High Court analyzed the appeal and declared that the above-mentioned “Workers Statute” was constitutional.
The decision of the European Court of Human Rights reviewed Laventos “He never asked the authorities to be recognized as disabledAccording to the provisions of the Common Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Their Social Inclusion.