Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse om køn - arbejdsvilkår - afskedigelse - ej medhold

Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse om køn - arbejdsvilkår - afskedigelse - ej medhold

J.nr. 24-27679

En kvinde (klager) klagede over sin arbejdsgiver (indklagede).

Kvinden mente, at arbejdsgiveren havde forskelsbehandlet hende på grund af køn i forbindelse med kvindens arbejdsvilkår og afskedigelse.

Den 26. februar 2024 blev kvinden afskediget fra sin stilling.

Afskedigelsen blev begrundet i kvindens performance.

Kvinden gjorde gældende, at hun blev afskediget fra sin stilling, fordi hun passede sit barn, når han var syg.

Kvinden gjorde desuden gældende, at hun ikke havde samme fleksibilitet som sine kollegaer i forhold til at passe sit barn, når han var syg, da kvinden ikke fik lov til at arbejde hjemme, og da kvinden ofte var nødt til at holde ferie for at passe sit syge barn.

Kvinden gjorde ligeledes gældende, at der blev stillet urimelige forventninger i forhold til hendes arbejdsopgaver, og at hun af sin leder blev overvåget i forhold til pauser og offline tid.

Efter en samlet vurdering af de forelagte oplysninger fandtes kvinden ikke at have påvist faktiske omstændigheder, der gav anledning til at formode, at hun under sit ansættelsesforhold havde dårligere arbejdsvilkår på grund af sit køn, eller at arbejdsgiveren i forbindelse med afskedigelsen af kvinden helt eller delvist havde lagt vægt på kvindens familiemæssige situation.

Kvinden fik derfor ikke medhold i klagen.

Klagen angår påstået forskelsbehandling på grund af køn i forbindelse med arbejdsvilkår og afskedigelse af klager.

Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse

Indklagede har ikke handlet i strid med ligebehandlingsloven.

Sagsfremstilling

Den 16. maj 2022 blev klager ansat i en stilling som Product Manager hos indklagede.

Den 4. december 2022 fik klager et barn med sin daværende kæreste, som også arbejdede hos indklagede.

I juli 2023 vendte klager tilbage på arbejde efter sit fravær efter barselsloven.

Den 6. november 2023 havde klager og klagers leder følgende korrespondance

Klagers leder

”Good morning [emoji]

Can you let me know what you were working on on Friday please?

Which tickets you created, updated etc [emoji]”

Klager

“Morning, I finished all the tickets for [navn]!

The documentation, I updated the ticket iframe for [navn]”

“So all the tasks you gave me for last week”

Klagers leder

“And are you working from the office today?

If you’re already at the office please let me know what you’re working on this morning”

Klager

“I’m arriving in the office”

“I left [barn] in the nursery”

“I have a question because I am not used to work like this (in the previous teams I didn’t [emoji]).

I used to decide for my team and not give anyone so many daily explanations until the monthly 1-1.

It seems like a lot of micromanaging and I appreciate all your effort but I would love to be able to work as a PO who decides for herself, and not have to be so closely monitored [emoji]

At the end of the day we both have our teams and the way of learning is letting me try even if I fail and when I fail I can ask for help!

[emoji]”

“hey, I hope you do not mind that I am being honest with you - it is a different workflow for me too!

!

”

Klagers leder

“Hey [klager], I agree that the approach we like to take within our team is one where we empower and trust our POs fully.

However your performance since taking on this role hasn't allowed us to do this, as already raised in our 1-1s, in our Slack chat here and also reflected in your goals.

This role is different to the ones you had before - while in the previous PO roles you had since joining [indklagede] there was the opportunity to take things easier and rely more on your devs to put in the work, this role is more hands on whereby you need to be on top of upcoming and ongoing migrations your team is handling.

While we understand that everyone can be going through difficult times personally, we are all still expected to deliver at work.

As mentioned multiple times, you have always been welcome to ask for help, and that hasn't changed.

There is always room for error and learning of course, provided that growth and improvement stems from it.

That being said, it is my responsibility that any shortcomings and/or mistakes are picked up from my end to ensure that our work keeps going without impacting the business.

We have been extremely supportive and accommodating, however your performance so far has been impacting my workload, my performance and my well being at work drastically.

While I can see and appreciate that you have recently started to make an effort, your track record since taking up this role is the reason why we are monitoring so closely.

I hope that together with the feedback provided already by myself and HR, you can this to grow within this role and reach your goals.

”

Klager

“I understand and appreciate - but this feels a little bit unfair if you allow me to be honest.

I was 2 weeks into migration when my child got sick and I had to be almost 4 weeks with him home.

No one can expect me to deliver flawlessly at work or to act like my mind is not taken up by how sick my child is, or by the full nights spent in the hospital prior to the working days.

It is every employee's right to be at home (sick leave) as much as possible.

Family comes first ALWAYS.

I would never ever put a job or a workplace first where I am totally replaceable especially under the circumstances where

[barn] only has me.

He is and always be my priority and I am already trying my best to catch up and still learn the migrations process.

But being all the time micromanaged really does not motivate me, it makes me doubt myself and slow down my performance.

You are lovely and super helpful and I wish you let me do my daily to do lists, let m take ownership of my team.

This is the way of learning and I did it well in my previous teams where I had the ideas, I took initiatives.

.

.

So the goals and timeline I believe should be adjusted too.

Once again thanks and I am sorry that your wellbeing has been impacted because of me but I cannot predict (even if I wish) when my baby that I am raising alone gets sick.

And even in those situations, I am entitled to take care of him and take my leave.

[emoji]”

…

Klagers leder

“I agree that family is important and should always come first, but how that is handled - be it alone, with a partner, with family support etc., is personal and should be kept as such.

While we understand that it must be hard taking care of a sick child, we have many parents working at [indklagede] who find themselves in similar situations but handle them without it impacting their work.

We have been more than flexible with you taking last minute vacation leave to support your situation and there have also been times where I advised you to take your sick leave for your own well being, at my own detriment due to the unplanned additional workload.

You had also been taking longer 'working from home' periods than the company's policy, without manager approval, whilst also not delivering on your work.

From my end I am not trying to micromanage anyone, I am simply ensuring that Immortals run smoothly and as consistent as Eternals.

The Migration teams have tight goals, deadlines and high expectations as I've been discussing with you already, and these need to be met.

The plan has always been for you to add your own touch to the team – lead Immortals and projects from start to finish, as listed in your goals, so I hope you can use this time in November to work towards reaching them.

As already discussed, the goals until end of year which were communicated to you and agreed to from your end will not be adjusted.

Please keep in mind that taking all of December off was approved because while you booked your flights and assumed you can work remotely before even getting approval, I decided to accommodate you, once again at my own detriment to support your personal situation.

Therefore while I understand that this way of working is new to you, I hope you can understand why it is needed and we can keep moving forward.

”

Klager

“I understand and I thank you for that.

If you could give me an example of one parent in [indklagede] (single parent of a baby) with absolutely 0 support.

The parents in [indklagede] have indeed families (partners, grandmothers and so on).

I’m just one person that had to take care only of her baby.

That was it, no grandma, no partner.

My baby required constant and uninterrupted attention since the medication needed was very intense (inhalations for example).

It is okay - I can see the values of the culture and I guess family is not first.

I will try to focus on work as much as possible because I also need to support myself and him financially.

Thank you again for your understanding!

Cheers to the new migrations!

…”

Den 9. november 2023 havde klager og klagers leder følgende korrespondance

Klager

”I will have to take [barn] to the GP at 11.

He got sick again and the nursery told me to take him to the doctor for checks”

Klagers leder

“[Barns far] is on child sick today though…”

Klager

“it will be one hour max”

“yeah I know…tell me more…I am in the office”

“but I need to go, pick him up and take my baby to GP”

Klagers leder

“HR informed us that since [barns far] has taken the day as child sick, he should be be available to take care of [barn] for the working day.

This includes picking up [barn], taking him to the GP and taking care of him for the rest of the day.

Therefore you are expected to keep working from the office today at 11am and for the rest of the day”

Klager

“he took it as holiday as far as I know”

Klagers leder

“For us he is marked as child sick, so that is how it will be treated”

…

Klager

“yeah, definitely.

If he has the child sick day I totally agree.

I talked to the GP at 9 so she told me that the only available timeslot is at 11.

I talked to [barns far] and he told me he will take full care of [barn] today so I can focus on work”

Klagers leder

“great, glad things worked out [emoji]”

Klager

“Things could be so easy and smooth from the very beginning… [emoji]”

“if [barn] has to be 2-3 days at home the next period [barns far] will be the one looking after him so I can be in the office”

“just letting you know that from my end my workflow won't be compromised when [barn] gets sick again [emoji]”

Klagers leder

“You are entitled to child sick like any other parent at [indklagede], so if you feel you need to take it instead of [barns far], you can.

Just if one of you is taking child sick, the other person needs to be at work (unless you're taking vacation leave of course), that's all”

“Up to you both how to split that though”

…

Klager

“another question: Isn't it possible at all to work at least one week remotely in Dec so I do not have to be off work all

month?

Is it any kind of agreement maybe we could make?

”

Klagers leder

“I'm sorry, unfortunately remote work can't be granted at this point in time, no”

Klager

“oki doki.

but how are all the other colleagues doing that work from so many countries?

?

”

“I have been told by HR last year that if I want to work from [land] I can do it without any problems and that we can have 2 weeks of remote work max consecutively”

“Of course it is nice to have a whole month of holidays but now I am thinking of the team”

“and you are part of the migrations team too so whatever support I can offer you in Dec (if possible) - I would love to!

”

“and you are part of the migrations team too so whatever support I can offer you in Dec (if possible) - I would love to!

”

Klagers leder

“So the policy is that remote work is allowed for short periods of time throughout the year, whereby you are required to work the same hours (regardless of timezone), make sure to check in/be visible and are trusted at work.

However it comes down to manager approval as well.

Since [navn] didn't grant [barns far] remote work, and you have confirmed that you are travelling together, we didn't see it fair that there are 2 separate rules.

This is also coming from the fact that when [barns far] was granted the full month off, you raised in our 1-1 that you should be given the same allowance.

Considering recent events relating to performance and accountability, especially when working from home, we don't have 100% confidence that you will be committed to working during this period.

This is also considering the fact that the nature of this trip is a family oriented whereby [barn] would require attention.

Additionally, you would then need to use up the 5 days of leave that would be replaced with the remote working between now and end of month (since the rest of December will be vacation leave) which is too short notice at this point time.

This is also taking into consideration that I have moved around my own leave to accommodate and cover your workload while you're away.

”

…

Klager

“Makes sense and many thanks for the explanation.

We will only travel together by plane, but in [land 2] we will be living separately and we will be one week each there with [barn].

I was asking purely to help you and the team more during that time [emoji]”

Klagers leder

“Definitely appreciated!

However we already made the necessary allowances and adjustments to support the team since you've booked the full month as vacation”

…”

Den 13. november 2023 havde indklagede og klager følgende korrespondance

Klagers leder

”On Friday the staging environment was ok, it wasn't half done or anything like that btw - I had a look myself on Friday and confirmed with [navn] too.

On Friday we were missing the Payment Methods and crash games issue.

.

.

any CSS fixes that weren't done by Friday should have been flagged during QA anyway then”

Klager

“Anything wrong that I’m doing?

”

“Always trying to find a needle in the haystack”

Klagers leder

“I'm not raising this feedback just for the sake of it, or to complain.

I'm raising it because if we have a QA process that requires certain checks to be done, then it's expected that they're done with attention.

Also, the staging environment was actually prepped by the time the QA was being done as confirmed with the devs.

.

.

so I'm not sure why you're saying the checks couldn't have been done properly”

“Just flagging issues as we go so you're gradually aware of the areas that need improvement, rather then being 'dumped' on you at one go with no heads up or context [emoji]”

Klager

“okay, let me set some things straight and clear because obviously I am starting to feel very uncomfortable: You are analysing every move I make and checking if I am online or not or if I am inactive (maybe because I eat or go to the bathroom).

You are giving me a bunch of tasks and telling me to do x and y (not related to our current migration).

I am trying without more than 2-3 mins toilet breaks to do everything.

I spent some days in a row focusing on [navn] and trying to reach all the tasks you are giving me.

I wish I could have ownership over my team, I wish I could do the things on my way, having my own to do lists (I am responsible PO and all this managing that you are doing is very demotivating me, does not give me the space to think for myself or work as I would like to).

So please, let me handle my team because otherwise if you are always all over me I would not be even able to reach my goals (how can I handle the QAs, the migration process, talk to the stakeholders) when you are taking initiative over me in everything?

If I need help I always ask, I am still getting used to migrations, you've been working on them for a year - of course you are very knowledgeable.

Hence, I am adapting to them, I am doing all my best to work on them.

But for me it did not make much sense to waste some days on [navn] last week instead of [navn] when I could have easily worked on [navn] in 2 weeks from now.

I QAed what I could, my plan was to focus today on QA because on Friday I felt pressured to finish [navn] in fear of you getting upset that I am not fulfiling my tasks (hence you asked me about that documentation which definitely is not a rush).

That being said, please give me the space to work and learn on my own and I promise I will ping you when I need help.

Thanks [emoji]”

Klagers leder

“…

We have already discussed how your performance and quality of work so far has not allowed us to fully hand over the team to you.

Also previously discussed, checking whether you're online or not is stemming from your performance in the past weeks as well as from unreliability in the past when working from home.

Some of this feedback was brought to me by HR, as I raised with you already.

While there is an expectation to deliver at a high standard, at no point did I force you and/or imply not to take bathroom breaks, lunch, rest etc. The amount of tasks given isn't unrealistic, they're around the usual workload one has in this role.

I trust that you are able to manage your time properly to complete your tasks, and when you can't, you simply raise it and we re-prioritise (like we did this morning for [navn]).

As you know we have been very flexible and supportive to ensure your work/life balance and overall well being, that hasn't changed [emoji]

The tasks being given to you are necessary as current/prep-work as we've discussed before.

As you said, I've been in this role for a while, so I can pre-empt the work required so that it won't come crashing onto your/our laps at one go.

So far you have been given chances to prove you can lead the team, deal with stakeholders etc. however at this point in time, while there has been some improvement, I do still feel that the attention to detail and quality of work is lacking.

Issues sometimes still remain present after feedback have been shared, receiving more pushback from you rather than reassurance that the issue is being understood.

Therefore I hope you can understand why the multiple checks and follow-ups are done, and why we have not been allowed to hand over the team to you fully.

Feel free to let me know if anything is unclear [emoji]”

Klager

“In the past weeks (after [barn] got better) I was only in the office, I doubt that the HR was monitoring me whether I am at my desk or not.

And while [barn] was sick I took child sick day, then sick day, then holidays - so the days I am off, I am off.

We have already discussed that wfh while [barn] was sick of course (and this is common sense) meant that I will also take care of him since I cannot be glued to a screen while my child needs medication and treatment.

You judged my performance all those weeks.

.

.

okay.

I would really like to see why and how I was unreliable since I came back to the office, knowing that I am working as I should, trying to catch up with all the migration workflow.

And no, I really cannot understand it.

”

Klagers leder

“With regards to wfh, what we actually discussed is that you if you're wfh, you are required to work - should [barn] need your attention, you are required to take vacation leave.

As for misalignment on performance, we can assess your performance more in detail this week in your 1-1 if you wish so that we can clear things out and keep moving forward [emoji]”

…”

Den 4. januar 2024 modtog klager en skriftlig advarsel, hvoraf fremgår

”…

We (your manager) have previously given you an oral reprimand for your performance on several occasions in 1-2-1s latest the 16th of November 2023.

We hereby issue a written warning for the following misconduct in regards to performance

Overall, [klager] has shown little initiative to learn and improve in her role and her performance is lacking within various matters.

Despite [klager] expressing her desire to help the team and contribute to projects, when asked to rise to these opportunities, she repeatedly does not put in the work and does not actively show initiative, which impacts performance.

This has been flagged to her and, with her approval, recorded in her performance goals as an area of improvement, but we still see things are not becoming better.

For example, an the 1 st of November, when asked to complete a list of tasks, it was only fully completed after multiple chasers an the 2nd, 6th and 8th November as [klager] kept skipping some of the things on the list.

After chasing the first time with feedback, there were still a number of pending tasks that remained skipped, resulting in additional chasing.

The tasks completed repeatedly had numerous mistakes, even after a round of feedback was given, which can not all be tied to the fact that she was new to the role at the time.

For example when creating development tickets, she copy and pasted information from the template tickets (set up from a previous migration) and did not always update them.

Therefore the tickets had incorrect information from another site, as flagged by her manager on the 3rd of October and again on the 24th of October and 22nd November respectively.

While this is a small error, it happened multiple times so far even after bringing attention to it.

This impacts development as the developers are provided incorrect information, resulting in incorrect development and/or misuse of resources to clarify this information.

It also impacts documentation since the tickets would have incorrect information.

Other instances include [klager] mapping out modules without proper testing and investigation.

Her manager' noticed that despite clear instructions being given to test by checking the front-end and back-end of the site, these steps were skipped.

Even after multiple rounds of feedback, the tickets weren't always updated properly.

Feedback had to be spoon-fed whereby these tickets were eventually updated either from her end or by her manager.

On the 1st of November, [klager] was asked to start the preparation work for an important migration ([navn]) the team has coming up in January.

This preparation work had to be carried out in tandem with another migration ([navn]) that was close to completion at the time.

[Klager] was already advised by her manager that the [navn] migration needs attention and it was agreed with [klager] that all preparation work needs to be completed before she goes on vacation on the 4th of December until the 2nd of January.

Her manager had vacation leave planned on the 23rd of November until the 29th of November, which [klager] and the team were aware of beforehand.

On the 14th of November her manager also shared suggestions on how [klager] can plan her workload between the two migrations so as to utilize her time efficiently and avoid being overloaded.

However, [klager] seemed to be reluctant to take on this advice.

On the 16th November, her manager had to chase [kalger] to complete same of her tasks that would contribute to keeping the migration process going smoothly.

On the 22nd of November, [klagers] manager shared a detailed list of tasks that needed to be completed while she was an vacation.

These tasks included clarifications with stakeholders, clarifications with her development Tech Lead as well as fixing many mistakes in the tickets she had created.

During this week, it was noted that very minimal clarifications were made, same still incorrect.

A number of items from the to-do list were completely skipped and also omitted from her handover to her manager, as flagged by her manager on the 2nd January.

There was also very little communication between [klager] and the Tech Lead as well.

A sa result, when her manager returned from vacation, the majority of [klager] tasks for the [navn] migration had to be reviewed and redone.

When the development team and/or her manager asked [klager] to clarify issues with stakeholders, it was noticed that [klager] simply copy and pasted feedback given to her and shared it with stakeholders without providing an explanation.

Her manager had already raised the importance of clear communication with stakeholders, and is listed in the provided documentation as well.

On the 19th of October this was flagged to her by her manager, and again on the 2nd and 22nd of November.

In the to-do list given to [klager] on the 22nd of November, to be completed by 29th of November, multiple clarifications were once again skipped or copy/pasted without a proper explanation to stakeholders.

As part of her role, [klager] is also responsible for QAing development tickets in order to ensure that our site is being built with the proper functionality and is in line with the Design in [navn] provided by the Design team.

The importance of this step was stressed to her multiple times, whereby her manager also showed her how to QA a couple of tickets in their 1-1 calls.

When giving her the task to QA the entire site being migrated, she confirmed that QA was done and tested as requested, however on the 24th of October the team noticed that she moved all QA tickets within a 5 to 10-minute time span, whereby most tickets weren't tested properly or at all.

This resulted in the development team sharing a sub-par staging environment with our stakeholders, bruising their perception of the development team;

a pain point the team has been working at management level to resolve, which she has been made aware of multiple times.

This poor quality of work resulted in an influx of bug requests and contributed to a delay in the migration.

It also required additional development resources to fix at this stage in the migration.

This issue was flagged to [klager] on the 13th of November by her manager, to which [klager] implied that poor QA was done due to the site being incomplete.

This was not the case as confirmed by the Tech Lead.

On the 8th of November [klager], her manager and the development team discussed some blockers in the migration over a call.

The team discussed the blockers in detail and came up with a solution for it.

In the call it was agreed that [klager] will clarify and explain this to the stakeholders.

[klagers] message on the 9th of November to stakeholders lacked a lot of context to a point that it was interpreted differently by stakeholders.

When flagged by her manager, [klager] pushed back saying the message was good enough, and blamed one of the developers in her team, saying that she communicated the message that way because he told her to.

The developer simply gave her the technical requirements, as that is what falls within his remit.

Despite [klager] having been made aware multiple times before that with every technical communication to stakeholders, there needs to be context or an explanation to ensure clear alignment.

The mistakes made and lack of attention to details, copy pasting old tickets etc., have a big impact on the team and stakeholders you work with.

Furthermore, it impacts deadlines, the overall communication as there is lack of information and lack of clarity, which in general impacts the operations within the team.

In future, you must

In the future you will have regular 1-2-1 meetings with your manager, who will help you and coach you on different matters, plan and prioritize tasks each week in order for your performance to become better.

Furthermore, she will set up tasks lists for you and with you, in order for you to have a clear focus on priorities.

Your goals, which were already agreed upon for 2024, will be in [navn] in order to track progression.

Additionally, we will have a follow-up talk on the 26th of February 2024 to evaluate your performance and how you are doing.

We will ensure proper support throughout the next months.

…”

Den 31. januar 2024 havde klager og klagers leder følgende korrespondance

Klagers leder

”hmm not sure why this wasn't flagged during QA since we have them in the homepage and also in [navn] [emoji] but report it to the devs and they'll fix it”

Klager

“I honestly thought yesterday that it is a SM thing when you talked about being added manually”

Klagers leder

“right ok”

Klager

“they started making a thread so I told them to mark everything in the sheet”

Klagers leder

“but when you were checking dev and staging before, it was clear that the quicklinks weren't there.

.

.

i only flagged it yesterday, a day before we had to share staging, QA was done before then already [emoji]”

“yes good thinking about directing them to the sheet”

Klager

“I think I noticed even smaller things than the quicklinks on homepage.

The homepage however was being checked and worked on yesterday because in the morning I noticed that it was also written on it ''Homepage'' and then changed by the devs.

So it was good that you came back to check the homepage [emoji] and flagged it.

I spotted small stuff and changed myself some little things in content too.

So that one was not on purpose omitted”

Klagers leder

“Yes of course it wasn't omitted on purpose, but we have the last say before sharing staging so we need to make sure that everything is ok, even if the devs were working on the homepage in the morning.

It's good that I checked yes, but even after I raised it, it wasn't followed up since I didn't chase myself.

.

.

.

.

the goal is that I don't need to be as involved”

Klager

“hey, it would be better if you wouldn't be so involved honestly.

It gives me freedom, motivates me and allows me to create a workflow where I don't feel pressure and I feel more proactive and motivated and perform well!

But yep, thanks for taking your time, it's good another pair of eyes on such a website

on another note, the stakeholders started filling the sheet so I will start checking and report what's needed to our devs”

Klagers leder

“Unfortunately I'm not in a position to take a step back - while some initiative is being taken, it's not consistent.

Additionally, the lack of attention to detail and pushback to adhere to our workflow are also still there.

.

.

these points have already been mentioned in our 1-2-1s since meeting with [navn].

The workflow, together with my constant feedback is set up for you to be proactive, it's only these pain points that are holding you back.

We can discuss this further tomorrow in our 1-2-1 if you wish [emoji]”

Klager

“I highly disagree with you, I do not consider that I lack attention.

As it was shown previously before working with you that I show very good attention skill.

all the pressure, all the micro managing, all the stepping into my conversations and me trying to discuss with the stakeholders (when you jump in and rephrase exactly what I talk to them), all the asking for proof and questioning every move or saying something and then telling me that in fact you never said it.

.

.

all this contribute to the overall stress, low self esteem and confidence of an employee and do not provide with an environment where an employee could show his values and performance.

I feel like I do not have a saying in anything, and when I try it is not enough for you because you believe that only the way you say, talk, write it is the best way to do so and if it is not 100% like that, then you need to criticise me and tell me how I did something wrong.

I do not feel confident to ask a lot of stuff because it would be considered a mistake or a silly thing or lack of attention.

I do not understand why I cannot set the own guidelines and workflow of my team and why everything you say it should always be 100% true and only your way of thinking and rules should be followed - hence not giving any opportunity to the employee to set his own workflow.

Everyone works differently and this is what makes a person thrive and work well - as shown in my previous team.

It is like me telling you that you should only eat the x food because that one is the only one good.

Am I a professional QA?

No.

I am not, I have to overexplain myself why one thing is like that and why I QAd sth like that and many times it is so unfair because you just thought it was a mistake instead of hearing me out why happen.

It is like every bug reported in the sheet is now my fault.

Instead of criticising me, think of why that happen, maybe there is one thing I did not notice after hours oh being glued tot he screen?

And starting missing out on things?

maybe a manager in that moment jumps in and says nicely ''hey, let me have a look as well''.

not ''yep, it's bad QA, you should have paid more attention''.

And workflows are different, another point, moving the tickets on the board, what I do is checking them, waiting for the guys to fix, writting down what I checked and at the end of the day moving all of them that can be moved.

”

…

Klagers leder

“I can't speak on your performance before joining migrations except that they were different roles, with different teams and workloads to the one you have now.

As for this role -- The workflow has been built together with management, and it was agreed with them that we follow it.

I can't stray from it either.

Any feedback and reminders to follow the migration process is coming from this as I have already explained.

The workflow also covers communication with stakeholders, and any time I had to step in was mostly due to unclear/mis communications, despite discussing the issue privately or with the devs in our channel/standups beforehand.

In most cases, I double check with [navn] first before raising anything with you to make sure that I'm not mistaken, I don't mention something to you and then say I didn't.

That being said, in instances where I might have made mistakes, I have owned up to it in the chat/channel in question.

The workflow is also built for utmost transparency and accountability across teams.

Requesting proof of where things are being communicated is coming from telling you time and time to use the channels, however you seem adamant to have private (on Slack or in person) conversations without following up in the channels for the wider team.

I've explained the importance of this multiple times and this isn't something only encouraged by me, but all the Product Team.

As for your attention to detail and quality of work, this has been a pain point which you had agreed to when inputting them in [navn], agreed to in our meeting with [navn], and also in our 1-2-1s since then.

The feedback on recurring mistakes that should be straightforward by now, sometimes still with multiple chasers and pushback, reflect this as well.

In our weekly 1-2-1s I have asked if there is anything unclear, and no issues are ever raised during this session.

I've also mentioned multiple times that I'm open to providing you with feedback in a format you're more comfortable with, however I didn't receive any clarity on this matter.

While it's obviously ok to make mistakes, there needs to be some sort of learning / take away from them.

I have raised the importance of QA and have shared feedback about this with you before.

In the case of [navn], I have raised the topic of QA not only to you but to the devs as well.

For this site, you had ample time to check that everything is ok, and before sharing staging I also double checked with you again that all is good.

Therefore you can understand my response when we shared staging and in the first few minutes, stakeholders flagged that an [navn] homepage component is missing.

With new tasks, like the [navn] file for example, the expectations are different of course.

Either way, for me to be able to understand the approach you're taking and/or what you're looking at, I would require context in the form of screenshots or checking your work.

I hope this clears things up.

”

Klager

“ok, since we are talking about using channels and transparency, then why the communication and check with [navn] are not made in our channel?

[emoji]”

Klagers leder

“I double check privately with [navn] to avoid calling you out on your mistakes in front of the whole team.

Same reasoning why I share feedback on your work privately, and not in the dev channel.

However, if you prefer that kind of approach, I can start doing that”

Klager

“Requesting proof of where things are being communicated is coming from telling you time and time to use the channels, however you seem adamant to have private (on Slack or in person) conversations without following up in the channels for the wider team.

- I always ask in the channel what it is very important and we need.

But if I have a coffee with [navn] and ask her how one word is translated, I do not believe I have to ask her again in the channel too since it is already confirmed by her”

Den 26. februar 2024 blev klager afskediget fra sin stilling.

Af afskedigelsesbrevet fremgår

”…

Your employment relationship is terminated at three months’ notice, see section 2 of the Salaried Employees Act, for severance of service on 31 May 2024. severance of service on 31 May 2024.

Your employment relationship is terminated due to your performance.

Reference is made to the written warning of 4th of January 2024, where we still see things are not good enough considering your seniority in your role, and how this impact the department and other stakeholders in their work

…”

Klagen blev modtaget i Ligebehandlingsnævnet den 29. februar 2024.

Klager fremsatte i sine bemærkninger af 2. juli 2024 en påstand om betaling af en godtgørelse på 100.000 kr.

Parternes bemærkninger

Klager gør gældende, at hun er blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling på grund af køn.

Siden klager vendte tilbage fra sit fravær efter barselsloven i juli 2023, oplevede klager systematisk diskrimination og ulige behandling ved indklagede, primært på grund af klagers status som enlig mor.

For det første oplevede klager diskriminerende behandling i forhold til pasning af klagers barn.

Klagers barn var ofte syg efter at være startet i dagpleje, hvorfor klager var nødsaget til at tage sig af barnet.

Mens de andre forældre hos indklagede, især dem i ledelsen, fik fleksibilitet til at arbejde hjemmefra eller ændre deres kalender for at tilpasse deres børns behov, fik klager forbud mod at gøre dette af sin manager.

Til trods for klagers gentagne anmodninger om at kunne arbejde hjemmefra i de perioder, hvor klagers barn var syg, fik klager hele tiden afvist denne mulighed med begrundelser som ”performance concerns” og ”business needs”.

Som konsekvens var klager nødt til at anvende sine feriedage hver anden uge for at tage sig af sit syge barn.

Når klager forsøgte at kommunikere om de udfordringer, klager havde som enlig mor, herunder udfordringerne med at finde hurtig børnepasning ved sygdom, blev klager mødt med afvisende kommentarer.

Klager fik at vide, at hendes personlige situation var ligegyldig, og at hun skulle lede efter en babysitter.

Klagers leder afviste gentagende gange klagers ansvar som enlig mor og insisterede på, at klager skulle prioritere at være fysisk til stede på kontoret, når klagers barn var syg.

Klagers leders kommentarer var ikke bare ufølsomme men også diskriminerende.

Hun sagde på et tidspunkt, at hun var ligeglad med, at klagers barn var syg, og at alle havde børn, og de klarede det, hvilket implicerede, at klager skulle være i stand til at håndtere sit ansvar, uden at klagers leder overvejede de unikke udfordringer, som var i klagers situation.

Klagers leder var fuldt klar over, at klager ikke havde noget familiestøtte i landet, og at klagers eneste mulighed for at få sit barn passet ved sygdom var med barnets far, som klager ikke boede sammen med.

Denne manglende forståelse for klagers situation var forskelsbehandling af klager og en fordomsfuld tilgang til, hvordan ansatte med børn blev behandlet.

For det andet oplevede klager diskrimination i forhold til arbejdsvilkår.

Igennem klagers ansættelse oplevede klager diskriminerende behandling i form af forskellige arbejdsvilkår i forhold til klages kollegaer.

Mens de andre ansatte havde fleksibilitet i deres arbejde, var klager underlagt urimelige krav og ufleksible forventninger.

Klager blev for eksempel ofte nægtet at holde toiletpause, og klager blev forventet at arbejde urimelige arbejdstimer.

Dette blev kun håndhævet over for klager.

Klagers leder overvågede klagers pauser, kommenterede på mindre offline perioder og kreerede en fjendtlig atmosfære med upassende bemærkninger under teammøder.

For det tredje var der hos indklagede en favorisering af dem i ledelsen.

De ansatte i ledelsen havde mere fleksibilitet og blev mødt med eftergivenhed, mens de ansatte, der ikke var i ledelsen, herunder lager, var underlagt strengere standarder.

Klager blev ofte pålagt ekstra arbejdsopgaver, som lå uden for klagers jobbeskrivelse.

For det fjerde blev klager afskediget baseret på diskriminerende grunde.

Klager blev uretfærdigt afskediget med den begrundelse, at det var på grund af ”performance issues” grundet klagers ansvar for at passe sit barn.

Det er tydeligt, at afskedigelsen af klager var udtryk for diskrimination, da klagers leder ikke kunne fremlægge nok bevis for klagers manglende performance.

Endvidere anførtes i afskedigelsesbrevet som begrundelse for afskedigelsen, at klager ikke havde opfyldt opgaver, der lå uden for klagers jobansvar, hvilket var et forsøg på at gemme, at afskedigelsen var begrundet i diskriminerende grunde.

Klager fik varierende feedback fra sin leder, før klager blev afskediget.

Klager modtog en skriftlig advarsel.

Klager tog feedbacken seriøs og arbejdede grundigt for at adressere de bekymringer, der var angivet i brevet.

Klagers leder anerkendte herefter, at klager havde forbedret sig, og hun udtrykte tilfredshed med klagers fremskridt.

Klager blev endda kort før afskedigelsen rost for sin performance af sin leder, og klager fik ansvaret for nye projekter i marts.

Dette indikerede tydeligt, at klagers performance ikke bare var tilfredsstillende, men at klagers leder havde tiltro til klagers evne til at håndtere fremtidigt ansvar.

Klager blev dog afskediget tre dage senere.

Indklagede gør gældende, at klager ikke er blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling på grund af køn.

Det fremgår af klagers ansættelseskontrakt, at klager havde krav på at tage fri i forbindelse med barns første sygedag.

Den 4. december 2022 fik klager et barn sammen med sin kæreste, der på det tidspunkt også var ansat hos indklagede.

Den 6. november 2023 drøftede klager og klagers leder klagers situation med at få passet klagers barn og mulighederne for at arbejde hjemme ved barns sygdom.

I den forbindelse henviser indklagede til indholdet af beskeden, hvor klagers leder udtrykte, at indklagede havde været fleksibel og støttende, men at der var mange hos indklagede, der ikke lod lignende situationer påvirke deres arbejde, og at klager havde arbejdet hjemme i længere perioder end tilladt, uden at klager samtidig leverede i sit job.

Den 9. november 2023 skrev klager til sin leder, at hun var nødt til at tage sin søn til lægen.

Dette skete til trods for, at klagers leder påpegede over for klager, at klagers kæreste samme dag havde meddelt sin leder, at han ville være hjemme med barn syg.

Fra den 20. oktober 2023 og frem til den 9. november 2023 var klager på sygeorlov for at tage sig af sin søn.

Indklagede var indforstået med, at klager tog op til fem dages sygeorlov med fuld løn, selvom politikken hos indklagede – som så mange andre steder – var, at man som ansat alene var berettiget til at holde fri med løn på barnets 1. og 2. sygedag.

Det er almindelig praksis på det danske arbejdsmarked, at retten til frihed med løn under barns sygdom er begrænset til 1. og allerhøjest 2. sygedag.

Hvis der er behov for yderligere dage for at passe sit syge barn, må dette altså tages som ferie eller som orlov uden løn, hvis ikke medarbejderen selv er uarbejdsdygtig grundet egen sygdom.

Den 9. november 2023 modtog klager besked om, at indklagede ikke kunne acceptere, at klager ønskede at arbejde fra et andet land i løbet af december 2023.

Forholdene omkring klagers manglende performance blev igen rejst af klagers leder ved besked af 13. november 2023.

Indklagede anførte blandt andet, at klagers performance ikke var tilfredsstillende, når hun arbejdede hjemme.

Klagers leder anførte også, at det ikke var sandt, at klager ikke måtte tage toiletpauser, eller at mængden af arbejdsopgaver var urealistiske.

Klagers leder påpegede igen, at indklagede havde været fleksibel og støttende for at sikre klagers work/life balance.

Det skal således i det hele bestrides, sådan som klager ellers har gjort gældende, at hun under sin ansættelse ikke havde den samme form for fleksibilitet som de øvrige medarbejdere i selskabet, ligesom det heller ikke er korrekt, at klager blev nægtet fx toiletpauser.

Den 4. januar 2024 modtog klager en advarsel for manglende performance.

I advarslen angives flere mere konkrete og specifikke eksempler på forhold omkring klagers indsats, herunder klagers manglende opmærksom på detaljer.

Der blev angivet tre forhold i advarslen, som klager skulle forbedre.

Det blev bemærket i advarslen, at hvis der ikke skete ændringer fra klagers side angående den beskrevne adfærd, ville dette føre til opsigelse.

Efter advarslen blev klagers performance ved flere efterfølgende lejligheder bragt op af klagers leder.

I lyset af, at indklagede ikke så en forbedring i klagers performance, besluttede indklagede den 26. februar 2024 at opsige ansættelsesforholdet.

Hverken advarslen eller opsigelsen havde direkte eller indirekte sammenhæng med klagers køn eller hendes ønske om at passe sin syge søn.

Det bestrides, at klagers leder skulle have sagt, at hun var ligeglad med, at klagers barn var syg.

Dette er der heller ingen dokumentation for.

Det gøres gældende, at klager hverken under sin ansættelse eller i forbindelse med opsigelsen er blevet udsat for diskrimination i ligebehandlingslovens forstand, ligesom det også gøres gældende, at klager hverken direkte eller indirekte er blevet udsat for mindre gunstig behandling i forhold til ansættelsesvilkår.

Det følger af den almindelige ledelsesret, at arbejdsgiver kan lede og fordele arbejdet, herunder bestemme hvilke medarbejdere, der må arbejde hjemmefra og på hvilke tidspunkter, i det omfang dette ikke er i strid med præceptiv lovgivning, herunder ligebehandlingsloven.

Det følger af ligebehandlingslovens § 8 a, stk. 2, 1. pkt., at en lønmodtager med et eller flere børn under 9 år skriftligt kan anmode arbejdsgiveren om ændrede arbejdstider eller -mønstre i en nærmere angivet periode.

Det følger videre af § 8 a, stk. 2, 3. pkt., at arbejdsgiveren skal overveje og besvare lønmodtagerens anmodninger inden for et rimeligt tidsrum under hensyntagen til både arbejdsgiverens og lønmodtagerens behov, samt at arbejdsgiver skal begrunde sit afslag på lønmodtagerens anmodninger.

I den forbindelse gøres det gældende, at afslaget på klagers anmodninger om at arbejde hjemmefra i den forbindelse har haft et sagligt og legitimt formål, da indklagedes begrundelse for afslaget skyldtes klagers utilstrækkelige arbejdsindsats, når hun arbejdede hjemmefra.

I denne sammenhæng må der også henvises til, at klagers daværende kæreste, som ligeledes var ansat i indklagede på de samme dage, hvor klager fremsatte anmodninger om hjemmearbejde, tilsvarende anmodede om hjemmearbejde i relation til, at deres fælles søn var syg, hvilket indklagede var vidende om.

Som det er anført i ansættelseskontrakten, var medarbejdere i indklagede berettiget til at være hjemme med barn syg, men at det var under forudsætning af, at den anden forælder ikke kunne passe det fælles barn.

Det var og er stadig almindelig praksis hos indklagede, at hjemmearbejde kan godkendes, men at dette blev vurderet fra gang til gang, og at det hver gang var underlagt godkendelse fra medarbejderens nærmeste leder.

Klagers påstand om, at hun skulle være den eneste medarbejder, som ikke fik lov til at arbejde hjemmefra, må derfor afvises.

Baggrunden for, at klager ikke var berettiget til at arbejde hjemmefra, skyldtes først og fremmest, at klagers indsats for indklagede gentagne gange var blevet bragt op for klager som følge af, at hun grundlæggende ikke levede op til de krav, som indklagede stillede til sine ansatte.

I en situation, hvor en medarbejder gentagne gange har fået påtalt og tillige har modtaget en advarsel for sin utilstrækkelige arbejdsindsats, må det således anses for berettiget at nægte medarbejderen at arbejde hjemmefra, idet det er sket som led i udøvelsen af den almindelige ledelsesret.

En påstand om, at indklagede på det grundlag har udøvet forskelsbehandling på baggrund af klagers køn i strid med ligebehandlingsloven, må derfor afvises.

Det gøres gældende, at der foreligger en klar sammenhæng mellem de i advarslen anførte forhold og de grunde, der ses anført i opsigelsesbrevet af 26. februar 2024.

Klagers leder var gentagne gange nødt til at overtage hendes arbejde grundet missede deadlines.

Ligeledes har klager gentagne gange nægtet at efterkomme direkte og klare ledelsesinstrukser om ikke at kommunikere uden for officielle kanaler.

Det gøres derfor gældende, at klager ikke har påvist faktiske omstændigheder, som giver anledning til at formode, at hun er blevet forskelsbehandlet i strid med ligebehandlingsloven.

Klager har ikke fremlagt nogen form for dokumentation, der understøtter, at hun måtte være blevet forskelsbehandlet på grund af sit køn.

Ligebehandlingsnævnets bemærkninger og konklusion

Ligebehandlingsnævnet behandler klager over forskelsbehandling på grund af køn efter lov om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til beskæftigelse mv. (ligebehandlingsloven).

Det fremgår af ligebehandlingsloven, at enhver arbejdsgiver skal behandle mænd og kvinder lige ved ansættelser, forflyttelser og forfremmelser.

Dette gælder også ved afskedigelser.

Ved ligebehandling forstås, at der ikke finder forskelsbehandling sted på grund af køn.

Der foreligger direkte forskelsbehandling, når en person på grund af køn behandles ringere, end en anden person bliver, er blevet eller ville blive behandlet i en tilsvarende situation.

Der foreligger indirekte forskelsbehandling, når en bestemmelse, et kriterium eller en praksis, der tilsyneladende er neutral, vil stille personer af det ene køn ringere end personer af det andet køn, medmindre den pågældende bestemmelse, betingelse eller praksis er objektivt begrundet i et sagligt formål, og midlerne til at opfylde det er hensigtsmæssige og nødvendige.

Hvis en person, der anser sig for krænket, påviser faktiske omstændigheder, som giver anledning til at formode, at der er udøvet direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling, påhviler det modparten at bevise, at ligebehandlingsprincippet ikke er blevet krænket.

Som sagen er oplyst for nævnet, er det ikke nødvendigt for sagens afgørelse, at der føres bevis i form af mundtlige parts- og vidneforklaringer.

Indklagedes afvisningspåstand tages derfor ikke til følge.

Den 26. februar 2024 blev klager afskediget fra sin stilling hos indklagede.

Afskedigelsen blev begrundet i klagers performance.

Den 4. januar 2024 havde klager modtaget en skriftlig advarsel på grund sin performance.

Klager har gjort gældende, at hun blev afskediget fra sin stilling, fordi hun passede sit barn, når han var syg.

Klager har desuden gjort gældende, at hun ikke havde samme fleksibilitet som sine kollegaer i forhold til at passe sit barn, når han var syg, da klager ikke fik lov til at arbejde hjemme, og da klager ofte var nødt til at holde ferie for at passe sit syge barn.

Klager har ligeledes gjort gældende, at der blev stillet urimelige forventninger i forhold til klagers arbejdsopgaver, og at hun af sin leder blev overvåget i forhold til pauser og offline tid.

Efter en samlet vurdering af de forelagte oplysninger findes klager ikke at have påvist faktiske omstændigheder, der giver anledning til at formode, at klager under sit ansættelsesforhold havde dårligere arbejdsvilkår på grund af sit køn, eller at indklagede i forbindelse med afskedigelsen af klager helt eller delvist har lagt vægt på klagers familiemæssige stilling.

Klager får derfor ikke medhold i klagen.

Retsregler

Afgørelsen er truffet efter følgende bestemmelser

Lov om Ligebehandlingsnævnet

Ligebehandlingsloven

-

Be more focused on details, and follow our required processes in the team, as not following these steps can impact other people and their work as well.

Furthermore, it impacts your current quality of the work you deliver, which has been with mistakes.

-

You also need to be more thorough with the communication, documentation and tickets to relevant stakeholders in order to not create confusion for others.

-

You need to do as we agree, and follow this plan, so we make sure to reach deadlines set and to make sure we have less errors, such as not testing properly or not doing it at all.

-

Updates and clarifications are still lacking and not at a level that we, as a company, can accept.

It appears to be selective and lacks consistency.

Reminders or follow-ups still need to be given, often resulting in her manager's intervention.

-

[Klager] still has copy/pasted information from stakeholders, and it seems like she is missing an understanding of the actual issue herself even though the manager has told her she can help and explain.

This was clear when reporting on the [project] staging environment was open to stakeholders.

-

For the QA’ing there are still several mistakes resulting from skipped QA since the last meeting.

Her manager also received feedback from stakeholders, concerned that what they are reporting is not being properly tested by [klager]

-

Stakeholder communication still has happened outside of team channels, which [klager] has been told is not the correct process of work, with little to no follow up in the channel as to what was discussed.

•

§ 1, stk. 1 og 2, om nævnets kompetence

•

§ 9, stk. 1, om klagebehandling

•

§ 12, stk. 1, om klagebehandling

•

§ 1, stk. 1-4, om lovens anvendelsesområde

•

§ 4 om forbud mod forskelsbehandling

•

§ 16 a om delt bevisbyrde