Geschlechterspezifische Diskriminierung

After a restructuring of the Austrian Armed Forces, the petitioner lost her position, which was instead awarded to an older male with comparable experience but without the petitioner’s  special training. Representatives from the Austrian Armed Forces (“AAF”) claimed that for reasons of economy, efficiency, and expediency, the reorganization sought to retain employees who were above age 50 and with presumably the shortest period of service remaining.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (literally translated: Pension Insurance Institution) claiming a higher pension, arguing that the implementation of an adjustment factor for pensions, established in 2008, resulted in indirect discrimination against women who were disproportionately less likely to qualify for an exceptional pension increase.

The appellant, a 22-year-old Somali woman,  applied to the Austrian government for asylum and international protection, stating that she was abducted by the Al-Shabaab Militia and her uncle arranged a forced marriage for her. Her application for asylum and international protection was rejected by the relevant asylum authorities and the Austrian Federal Administrative Court on the grounds that the reasons stated by the appellant were not credible, too vague, and contradictory.

Among other aspects, this act aims at ensuring gender equality in various areas of life, for instance, in the workplace. It addresses issues like equal opportunities for men and women as well as sexual harassment in the workplace. It also lists the authorities a person may turn to if  they feel they are being discriminated against. Notable is the shift of the burden of proof in Section 25: a discrimination claimant only has to credibly substantiate the claim, whereas the defending party has to prove that there was no discrimination.

The plaintiff was employed as a waitress with Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner, and was terminated while undergoing in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). She then filed suit to recover payment of her salary, claiming the termination was invalid under the Maternity Protection Act. She argued that from the date of her IVF treatment (two days before termination of her employment) she was entitled to national legislative protections against dismissal.