Guangdong Province

[field_geographical_location_1]

Domestic Case Law

梁海媚与广东惠食佳经济发展有限公司、广州越秀区名豪轩鱼翅海鲜大酒楼人格权纠纷,广东省广州市中级人民法院 (Liang v. Guangdong Huishijia Economic Development Co. Ltd.) Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou Municipality (2016)

Employment discrimination, Gender discrimination

The plaintiff sued the defendants for infringing upon her right to employment equality. The plaintiff alleged that the online advertisement posted by the defendants, to which Liang responded, required kitchen apprentices to be “men between the ages of 18 and 25.” The plaintiff further alleged that when she went to the restaurant, the receptionist informed her of the restaurant’s policy that “all employees in the kitchen should be men, even if a woman possesses the qualifications of a chef.” The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ behavior violates Articles XII and XIII of the People’s Republic of China’s Employment Law, which provide that potential employees should not be discriminated against on the bases of ethnicity, race, sex, and religious beliefs. As relief, the plaintiff requested (1) an official apology from the defendants; (2) 21 Chinese yuan in damages for costs incurred by responding to the advertisement; and (3) 40,800 Chinese yuan in damages for emotional distress. The court of first instance held that the defendants’ actions constituted gender-based discrimination against the plaintiff. However, it found insufficient evidence for the plaintiff’s emotional distress and awarded 2,000 Chinese yuan in damages. It also denied Liang’s request for an official apology. Both the plaintiff and defendants appealed.  Relying on the explicit requirement in the advertisement and the receptionist’s explanations that the candidate be a man, the Intermediate People’s Court held that the defendants’ exclusion based on the plaintiff’s gender was unlawful and unreasonable and constituted gender-based employment discrimination. With respect to relief, the Intermediate People’s Court held that under the Supreme People’s Court’s interpretations, emotional distress normally should not be compensated in monetary terms unless there are severe consequences.  The Intermediate People’s Court held that compensation of 2,000 Chinese yuan was within the discretion of the lower court, and thus upheld the amount. The Intermediate People’s Court, however ordered the defendants to issue an official apology to the plaintiff in newspapers in the Guangzhou area.

就业歧视、性别歧视

原告诉称被告侵犯了她与男子平等的就业权利。原告称自己对被告的网上招聘广告进行了应聘。招聘广告要求厨房学徒须为“男性,18-25岁”。原告称在她去被告酒楼时,被告知公司规定厨房不找女工,即使具备厨师证也不行。原告称被告违反了《中华人民共和国劳动法》第十二条和第十三条的规定。法律规定,劳动者就业,不因民族、种族、性别、宗教信仰不同而受歧视。原告的诉讼请求包括(1)判决被告书面赔礼道歉;(2)判决被告连带赔偿原告因应聘产生的经济损失21元;(3)判决被告赔偿原告精神损害抚慰金40800元。原审法院判决被告的行为构成了对被告的性别歧视,但原告提交的证据不足以支持原告精神损害抚慰金的诉讼请求,并判决被告支付原告经济损失2000元。原审法院还驳回了原告要求被告书面赔礼道歉的诉讼请求。原告与被告均不服原审判决并提起上诉。根据被告招聘广告和前台工作人员对只招聘男性厨师的解释,中级人民法院认定被告对原告进行限制及排斥的行为不具有合法性,并且损害了女性应聘者的就业平等权。就赔偿问题,中级人民法院判决,在最高法院的解释下,因侵权致人精神损害,但未造成严重后果,受害人请求精神损害赔偿的,一般不予支持。原审法院酌情由被告赔偿原告精神损害2000元,属于原审法院自由裁量权范围,中级人民法院予以维持。中级人民法院判决被告向原告作出书面赔礼道歉。



杨江山、中国人民解放军第四五八医院医疗损害责任纠纷,广东省高级人民法院 (Yang v. China PLA Hospital No. 458) Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province (2018)

Abortion and reproductive health rights

Yang sued China PLA Hospital No. 458 for violation of his reproductive rights. The plaintiff alleged that his wife sought an abortion at the defendant-hospital and lied that she was unmarried. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant did not meet its obligation to investigate Peng’s marital status and chose to believe Peng’s lie. The Court held that under Article 51 of the Law on Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests, “women have the right to reproduce and not to reproduce under the relevant state regulations.” Therefore, Peng’s right to voluntarily terminate pregnancy is protected by law. Moreover, according to the Supreme People’s Court’s authoritative interpretations of the Marriage Law, “courts should not support husbands’ damage claims based on infringement of their reproductive rights due to their wives’ termination of pregnancy.” Therefore, the defendant’s actions were not unlawful.

堕胎与生育权

原告杨江山诉称中国人民解放军第四五八医院损害了自己的生育权。原告称他的妻子于被告医院进行了终止妊娠手术并谎称自己未婚。原告还称被告没有尽到查清自己妻子婚姻状况的义务并轻信其妻子的谎言。法院认为,根据《中华人民共和国妇女权益保障法》,妇女有按照国家有关规定生育子女的权利,也有不生育的自由。因此,原告的妻子有自愿终止妊娠的法定权利。另外,根据《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释》,夫以妻擅自终止妊娠侵犯其生育权为由请求损害赔偿的,人民法院不予支持。因此,被告无需承担侵权责任。