The Évora Appeals Court confirmed on June 10 the decision by the Authority for Working Conditions (ACT) to fine Pingo Doce €10,000 for discriminating against a pregnant employee, in what was deemed a “very serious offense.”
The court ruling determined that the company engaged in discriminatory practices by not renewing the employee’s contract due to unsatisfactory performance and her decision to take leave instead of continuing to work during her pregnancy.
The incident occurred in 2022 at the Pingo Doce in Quinta da Correeira, Albufeira. On September 19 of that year, the Commission for Equality in Labor and Employment (CITE) alerted ACT about the situation.
The employee, known as AA, entered into an eight-month fixed-term contract with Pingo Doce, S.A., starting on January 31, 2022, and ending on September 29, 2022. The supermarket chain alleged that her contract was not renewed due to unsatisfactory performance.
The ruling noted that the employer claimed AA did not meet the necessary job requirements, attributing a negative evaluation to her performance.
However, the judges found evidence of “discrimination among workers” after comparing AA’s contractual situation with other employees hired at the same time.
Several employees had their contracts renewed, including another pregnant worker, identified as GG, whose contract was renewed during a high-risk pregnancy and later converted into a permanent contract.
The court explained that GG continued working during her pregnancy, in contrast to AA, who took leave.
The ruling stated, “This means that the pregnant worker who continued to work, despite having a high-risk pregnancy, was rewarded with contract renewal. AA, on the other hand, did not have her contract renewed because she became pregnant and went on leave.”
The ruling concluded that it was proven that the employer knew the employee was pregnant and could not refuse to renew her contract for this reason.
Nevertheless, the company decided not to renew the contract due to dissatisfaction with her performance and her choice to take leave during pregnancy.
In essence, the ruling highlighted a clear discriminatory factor: pregnant workers who do not take leave have their contracts renewed, while those who do take leave do not, deeming this sufficient to establish a discriminatory practice.
