Adresse https://gelex.eu/eli/DK/decision/retsinfo/2025/9134@2025-02-21/da

Indhold

1. Indledning

Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse om national oprindelse - ansættelse - afskedigelse - afvisning

J.nr. 24-114653 En mand (klager), der bor i Irland, klagede over en virksomhed (indklagede). Manden mente, at virksomheden havde forskelsbehandlet ham på grund af national oprindelse i forbindelse med, at virksomheden trak et jobtilbud tilbage. Manden modtog den 7. juni 2024 et jobtilbud fra virksomheden. Den 21. juni 2024 trak virksomheden jobtilbuddet tilbage med den begrundelse, at manden og virksomheden ikke var nået til enighed ved forhandlingerne om lønnen. Nævnet vurderede, at manden ikke med det oplyste havde påvist faktiske omstændigheder, som gav anledning til at formode, at han havde været udsat for forskelsbehandling på grund af sin nationale oprindelse. På baggrund af nævnets faste praksis var det herefter åbenbart, at klager ikke kunne få medhold i sin klage. Ligebehandlingsnævnet afviste derfor at behandle klagen. Afgørelsen blev truffet af et medlem af nævnets formandskab.

Klagen angår påstået forskelsbehandling på grund af national oprindelse i forbindelse med, at indklagede trak et jobtilbud tilbage. Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse Ligebehandlingsnævnet afviser at behandle klagen. Sagens behandling Afgørelsen er truffet af et medlem af Ligebehandlingsnævnets formandskab. Sagsfremstilling Klager, der har adresse i Irland, har oplyst, at han søgte en stilling hos indklagede. Klager og indklagede havde efterfølgende følgende mailkorrespondance: ”Wed, Apr 17, 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … Thank you for your application for our `Delegated QP/Experienced QA Associate with Project Management Skills´ position. As the hiring manager [navn] reports into me, we have looked at your great CV and found it especially interesting in connection with an open position we have in the DS QA expansion projects. I would therefore like to ask if you could be interested in an interview or informal talk with initial focus on driving one of our Drug Substance expansion projects over the finish line into operation as QA? . The position is a permanent position with the option of moving into QA DS Operation or continue in QA expansion project in Denmark. …” “Tue, Apr 18, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Thanks for taking the time to reach out. Yes - this sounds like a role that I would be interested in, and may even align better with my current experience. Can you share the detailed specification for this job and availability for interview please? …” “Wed, Apr 24, 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … The specification for this job is as described below: … Please notice that there will be work out of regular working hours and on call shifts and it will require onsite presence during the execution of the project. … ”Thu, Apr 25, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … That sounds good to me. Would you like to set up an interview for some time next week then? ”Tue, Apr 30, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Just wondering if you would still like to proceed with this application? I ask as I am now entering late stage interviews with a few companies here in Ireland - but my first preference is definitely to work abroad in Europe for my next role, and this one looks very exciting. …” ”Wed, May 1, 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … Sorry for my late reply. Yes we would like to have a talk with you. When would suit you best? Could you propose a few timeslots that will work for you beginning next week? …” Klager og indklagede aftalte at holde et møde den 13. maj 2024. Den 15. maj 2024 havde klager og indklagede følgende mailkorrespondance: ”Wed, May 15, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Nice to speak to you on Monday. [Navn] asked me to send a follow on email to confirm if I was still interested in the role afterwards - which I of course am. I would be happy to progress to the next stage if that is also [indklagedes] wish. …” ”Wed, May 15, 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … Thank you for writing and yes we would very much like to proceed with you for a second interview. Will it be possible for you to share 2 references with us, one of them being a former manager, which we can contact for us? I will look into arranging a meeting next week. I will let you know when I know more. …” Den 4. juni 2024 modtog klager en invitation fra indklagede til et tredje møde angående stillingen. Følgende fremgår heraf: ”… The meeting is about the relocation, and you will be meeting with [navn] and [navn]. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom and will take approximately 30 minutes. Are you available on Friday this week at 3 PM in Danish time? …” Den 7. juni 2024 modtog klager en mail fra indklagede, hvoraf følgende fremgår: ”… Thank you for the conversation over zoom today. Attached to this email, please find our salary offer and relocation package offer. We believe this package will support your transition and ensure a smooth relocation to Denmark. Please review the attached document and let us know is you accept the offer. …” Klager og indklagede havde efterfølgende følgende mailkorrespondance: ”Tue, Jun 11, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Thanks again for the great presentation & job offer, and allowing me the time to consider it. I was just wondering if there is any scope to increase the base salary to 55,000 per month at all? I noticed that this particular role was also advertised through a few contract agencies, so given the decent cost saved for [indklagede] by hiring myself on a permanent basis, hopefully there may be some small room left in the budget to allow for this. I am happy to forgo the pension benefit entirely if that would be of any help too. I am delighted with everything else in the offer, and the permanent contract will hopefully give me a greater opportunity to grow within the organisation. With my relevant experience in areas like start-up sites, QA, validation, Kneat software - as well as a strong motivation -I think that I have a lot to offer the team! Looking forward to your reply, and hopefully still getting started soon on the 01Jul date. …” “Thu, Jun 13 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … Thank you very much for your email and for your interest in the offer. We're happy that you are enthusiastic about the role and the opportunity to grow within [indklagede]. Regarding your request to increase the base salary to 55,000 DKK per month, I regret to inform you that it will be difficult for us to meet this figure. The pension benefit is a mandatory part of our compensation package, and we cannot forego it. I want to clarify that I am not aware of any contract agencies hired for this role. This might be due to some web crawling or misinformation. However, as a gesture of goodwill, we are able to offer an additional 1,000 DKK per month, bringing the total base salary to 51,000 DKK per month. I hope this adjustment will be acceptable to you. We are eager to have you join our team and I hope you will accept our offer. Please note that it might be challenging to get you started by July 1st due to the paperwork and immigration processes, but we will do our best to speed up the process as much as possible. …” ”Fri, Jun 14 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Sorry I missed the call, and thanks for the email. Perhaps in the end nobody may have been hired from agencies, but the job was advertised on LinkedIn through legitimate agencies like [virksomhed] seen in the screenshot. It was also advertised with an agency called [virksomhed], and possibly others. It specifically mentions a CDMO, and the descriptions are almost identical. Like I said, I am happier with the permanent contract and that is why I applied directly to the company, but the hourly rates offered through these agencies would have been significantly more in cost. I also think if you are planning to stay with a company for a long time, then negotiating a strong initial salary is important. I was wondering would you be able to meet in the middle at 52,500 per month? This would place the salary a bit closer to the Economic Research Institutes average figure of DKK 647,211 per year. Regarding the start date, that is okay if we can't quite make it for exactly the first. I really appreciate all of the help [indklagede] is offering to make the move to a new country as easy as possible for me. …” ”Wed, Jun 19, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Can I have a response to the above email from 5 days ago please? I need to know if I am to sort out my living situation here before moving. If it is that you prefer to speak about it on the phone – then if you suggest a time I can make sure that I am free for it. …” ”Wed, Jun 19 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … Apologies for my late reply. I will contact you by Friday at the latest. …” ”Thu, Jun 20, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Apologies I missed a call from yourself this morning - and have not recieved any further since. It is not possible for me to dial back the number, with a message saying ‘this number does not exist’. Does 10am Irish time / 11am Danish time work for you tomorrow? If this time does not suit, then can you please suggest an alternative so that I can make sure that I am available for it. …” Den 21. juni 2024 skrev indklagede følgende mail til klager: ”… I tried to call you yesterday, but was unable to reach you. This is why I am sending you this message. Thank you for your interest in [indklagede]. After careful consideration, we have decided not to proceed with your application. We appreciate your time and effort in discussing the offer with us. However, based on the recent negotiations and that no final agreement has been reached, we have decided to withdraw the offer. …” Klager og indklagede havde efterfølgende følgende mailkorrespondance: ”… Fri, Jun 21, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … In the last 2 emails I asked for a time to make sure that I did not miss the call in the shower, driving or at the gym. You did not propose a time. I wised to discuss the salary, as stated in the email thread, and had no intention of rejecting the offer. I am very surprised then that it is now being pulled? The email mentions negotiations - which are normal for a first offer. These are usually done over a few days. I did not receive a reply to my last email for a whole week - nor a time to take a phonecall either. I don’t believe asking for a figure closer to the average was unreasonable. Can you explain this decision further? I was very much looking forward to starting with the company. …” “Fri, Jun 21, 2024 From: [indklagede] To: [klager] … Thank you for your email and continued interest in the position at [indklagede] Relocating a candidate from another country is a significant step, and we want to ensure that such a move is the right fit for both the candidate and the company. Given the challenges in our communication and expectations, we have concerns about going forward with the relocation. We do not want you to move her unless we are fully confident that it will be a beneficial arrangement for both you and our company. …” ”Fri, Jun 21, 2024 From: [klager] To: [indklagede] … Can you expand on what it is that you mean by 'challenges in our communication and expectations', and specifically what 'concerns' you have please? There was no proper negotiation of the offer - my last email was simply ignored for a week. I would have expected you to return before then and say either: 1. Yes we can settle on 52,500 DKK per month, or 2. No 51,000 DKK is the best we can offer. I would have accepted either of these, but you were not willing to negotiate or respond. You may correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the issue may be something to do with me pointing out that the company also posted the job through agencies. Denying this I found to be a bit strange. The company is well within their rights to do this if they wish, and almost all do so. 2,500 DKK per month is an extra €4000 gross per year only, and is still below the national average for the position according to the source that I referenced. That is all I was looking for. Nothing egregious by any means - just the average wage. I had not even looked into the money before receiving a formal offer. Deciding to withdraw an offer to a candidate for simply attempting to negotiate a salary does not make for a positive look at all. Like I said, I am very surprised and disappointed by this behaviour. …” Den 26. juni 2024 sendte klager en mail til to andre medarbejdere hos indklagede. Følgende fremgår heraf: ”… I am just reaching out in case you can help me understand this decision better. I know that it will have been a group decision, not made by [navn] alone. I have shared the correspondence with a friend who works in HR and a couple of other former colleagues, and they say that they cannot pinpoint an issue. The only thing may be pointing out that the role was also advertised as a contract job, which it was. I explained why there is no issue with this, but it is odd that it was denied as 'web creep'. It would be unusual to not get a reply within 48 hours during a negotiation period out of respect for the candidate's time. I have attached the last few emails with just [navn] where I wished to speak to her on the phone but she would not give a time. The day I missed the call, she said in a voicemail that she "might" call again later but never did. I did not have the option to call back. If you want to withdraw an offer that's disappointing although your own prerogative - but I was hoping one of you could add more colour as to what is the issue here? Was it expected that I had to negotiate on the spot during the presentation / offer meeting? Any advice is appreciated. …” Den 2. juli 2024 sendte klager en mail til en anden medarbejder hos indklagede. Følgende fremgår heraf: ”… Hope you are well. I got this email address in an automatic reply to your colleague [navn]. I am just reaching out in the hope you could add more colour to the company's decision to withdraw a job offer after I attempted to negotiate the salary. I moved out of my rented accommodation upon receiving the formal offer, and as stated in the email - I had no intention of ever turning down the offer. Attached is evidence of me vacating my rented property in Ireland upon receiving the offer - leaving me currently without a place to live in a country with a severe housing crisis [I told the landlord I found alternative accommodation as he would not have given back the €512.50 for half the month otherwise]. I was not given any warning that the offer would or could be withdrawn. I was not given a deadline to accept or decline it within. I was ignored in my last exchange. I have been given two vague reasons for the withdrawal that I dispute - "based on the recent negotiations and that no final agreement has been reached" [this was because I received no reply to my last email in the 'negotiations'] and "given the challenges in our communication and expectations, we have concerns about going forward with the relocation [again I made every effort to speak to Marlene, and this sounds like discriminating on the grounds of location]. I was very honest throughout the interview process that the money was not important to me, and so am very surprised to have an offer pulled after perfectly normal negotiations. I was looking forward to starting the new job. I don't think that I have been given a credible explanation as to the company's decision. Can you explain further? Is it legal to withdraw an unconditional offer in Denmark? I know in most other EU countries this would actually be a breach of contract. …” Klagen blev modtaget i Ligebehandlingsnævnet den 7. oktober 2024. Klager fremsatte i klagen en beløbsmæssig påstand om betaling af en godtgørelse på 150.000 kr. Ligebehandlingsnævnet har ikke fundet grundlag for at foretage partshøring af indklagede. Parternes bemærkninger Klager gør gældende, at han er blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling på grund af national oprindelse i forbindelse med, at indklagede trak sit jobtilbud tilbage. Klager modtog et jobtilbud den 7. juni 2024 fra indklagede til stillingen som ”Quality Assurance Specialist – DS Expansion Projects”. Klager havde søgt to andre stillinger hos indklagede, men en leder hos indklagede kontaktede klager angående den anden stilling. Klager kunne se, at stillingen allerede var slået op hos forskellige jobplatforme og derfor spurgte klager indklagede om en jobbeskrivelse for at sikre, at der var tale om den samme stilling, hvilket var tilfældet. Jobbet blev tilbudt klager som en permanent stilling, hvilket ville reducere omkostningerne for indklagede betydeligt, da en sådan stilling normalt ville have en timelønnet ansat med højere løn. Efter at have modtaget jobtilbuddet forsøgte klager at forhandle lønnen, hvilket er normalt ved et jobtilbud. Efter at klager pointerede, at stillingen var den samme som på de andre jobplatforme, trak indklagede deres jobtilbud tilbage til klagers overraskelse. Klager ved ikke, om dette er lovligt i Danmark, men det virker uærligt. Klager formoder, at problemet er, at jobbet ikke blev slået op offentligt. Indklagede kunne ikke lide, at klager pointerede dette under forhandlinger, hvilket kan ses fra indklagedes valg om at prøve at benægte, at stillingen var slået op på en anden platform. Klager mener, at beslutningen om at trække jobtilbuddet tilbage er smålig og konstrueret og sætter indklagede i et dårligt lys. Klager prøvede at kontakte indklagede flere gange efter afslaget på ansættelse for at få klarhed om situationen, men klager blev ignoreret. Klager forklarede tydeligt, at han ikke havde nogen intention om at afslå tilbuddet, men klager fik ingen varsel om, at tilbuddet kunne eller ville blive trukket tilbage. Klager mener, at han ikke er blevet behandlet ligeligt på grund af sin nationale oprindelse og ønsker en godtgørelse for at have flyttet ud af sin lejlighed i god tro om, at indklagede ikke ville være så uprofessionel at trække et officielt jobtilbud tilbage uden varsel. Hvis klagers lokation eller nationale oprindelse var et problem, ville klager i første omgang ikke have modtaget jobtilbuddet, hvor der var inkluderet en forflytningspakke. Ligebehandlingsnævnets bemærkninger og konklusion Ligebehandlingsnævnet behandler klager over forskelsbehandling på grund af national oprindelse efter lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på arbejdsmarkedet mv. (forskelsbehandlingsloven). Det fremgår af forskelsbehandlingsloven, at en arbejdsgiver ikke må forskelsbehandle lønmodtagere eller ansøgere til ledige stillinger ved ansættelse, afskedigelse, forflyttelse, forfremmelse eller med hensyn til løn- og arbejdsvilkår. Ved forskelsbehandling forstås enhver direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling på grund af national oprindelse. Der foreligger direkte forskelsbehandling, når en person på grund af national oprindelse behandles ringere end en anden 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 med en bestemt national oprindelse ringere end andre personer, 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 udøves direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling, påhviler det modparten at bevise, at ligebehandlingsprincippet ikke er blevet krænket. Klager modtog den 7. juni 2024 et jobtilbud fra indklagede. Den 21. juni 2024 trak indklagede jobtilbuddet tilbage med den begrundelse, at klager og indklagede ikke var nået til enighed ved forhandlingerne om lønnen. Nævnet vurderer, at klager ikke med det oplyste har påvist faktiske omstændigheder, som giver anledning til at formode, at han har været udsat for forskelsbehandling på grund af sin nationale oprindelse. På baggrund af nævnets faste praksis er det herefter åbenbart, at klager ikke kan få medhold i sin klage. Ligebehandlingsnævnet afviser derfor at behandle klagen. Det, klager i øvrigt har anført angående indklagedes tilbagekaldelse af jobtilbuddet, ligger uden for nævnets kompetence at forholde sig til. Retsregler Afgørelsen er truffet efter følgende bestemmelser: Lov om Ligebehandlingsnævnet • § 1, stk. 1 og 3, om nævnets kompetence • § 6, stk. 3, om formandsafgørelser • § 8, stk. 2, nævnets afvisning af klagen • § 9, stk. 1, om klagebehandling • § 12, stk. 1, om klagebehandling Forskelsbehandlingsloven • § 1, stk. 1-3, om lovens anvendelsesområde • § 2 om forbud mod forskelsbehandling • § 7 a om delt bevisbyrde

Versioner

1. 2025-02-21