They must compensate a young woman whom they forced to use in their work a weat of a size minor than theirs

La Corte provincial de Mendoza dictó sentencia en favor de una joven de la localidad de Guaymallén a la que sus empleadores, dueños y encargados de una estación de servicio, la obligaron a usar calzas ajustadas de un talle menor al suyo pese a los pedidos realizados por ella para cambiar esa vestimenta.

The employer must compensate it for moral damage and for the sum of 150 thousand pesos.

The highest provincial court based its ruling considering the case within the laws of protection of women and international treaties referring to gender violence, warning that in this case there was discriminatory treatment, since the company, when using different uniforms forMen imposed "a patriarchal stereotype aimed at visualizing women highlighting her body as an instrument", since "the imposition of clearly sexist clothing matters a reification and degradation of the body".

In September 2012, F.V., began to work at a service station located on the flag street of the Andes at 2700 of Guaymallén where gasoline and gas loaded, cleaned glass and promoted a system of points and prizes.

The work uniform was a shoe, a shirt and a cap.She began asking her bosses a waist -cut pants of a woman's cut and the response of the manager was always: "...and I dont know".

The size

The fingers in question was size "s" (small), small, tight for your body.She was bothering her because she was the only woman who works at the service station and the place was "traveled by many men who went to the fair and had to face situations in which they directed inappropriate tenor phrases related to her physical contexture".

The situation made her feel "uncomfortable and affected in her sense of modesty since in her private life she did not have the habit of dressing shields".

On one occasion, taking advantage of the fact that the clothing of his companions was renewed and she did not give new clothes, he got an employee to give him a man's pants that began to use.

But in June 2013, a warning was notified for having been warned repeatedly opportunities for the use of the complete compulsory uniform.

In October 2013 they gave her a new shoe and she requested pants.In November they suspended her for 3 days for not going to work with the regulatory uniform.

When he reinstated, he did it with a man's pants and at half an hour they told him that if he did not put the fit, that he left.

The next day the employee lac.

At that time a crossing of documents began in which he explained that “the use of another type of uniform also responds to security and convenience issues because they handle money that is given to me in payment and when the pocket shields lack, I have nowheresave it or how comfortably your custody ".

After being considered "severely insult and farewell due to the exclusive fault of the employer," he warned discriminatory treatment and initiated a labor demand.It was favorable to that used for the sum of $ 42.094 and interests for $ 155.918, but the dismissal was not considered to be discriminatory.

Not conforming to it, the woman took the case to the Provincial Court. El máximo tribunal provincial – conformado por JoséValerio, Mario Adaro y Omar Palermo- falló a favor de la empleada indicando que también deberán indemnizar a la mujer “por el rubro daño moral”, por la suma de $ 150.0002 ″.

Fundamentals

A la hora de fundamentar el fallo el juezValerio dijo: “Estamos en presencia de un despido que es susceptible de ser calificado como discriminatorio”, advirtiendo que “existió un conflicto entre la actora y su empleadora en torno al uso del uniforme reglamentario de la empresa.The reason for dispute goes through the fact that the shareholder was forced to wear some shields against his sense of modesty and had to endure inappropriate phrases of male passers -by ”.

For his part, Judge Adaro argues that “any type of violence exerted on women, in any field-including labor-not only attentive to the right to equality and non-discrimination, but also to the aforementioned right to dignity andhuman integrity ".

In relation to the case, he pointed out that "the key is to determine that the limitation imposed by the employer was addressed only to the worker for her status as a woman evidencing a clear discrimination due to sex, without other objective and reasonable justification of her decision".

“The fact of having determined what clothing were for men and which for women as it was notified in a note aimed at the worker already implies a patriarchal stereotype a tending to visualize the woman highlighting her body as an instrument.The clearly sexist clothing imposition imports a watery and degradation of the body of F.V”, sostuvo Adaro.

Finally, Judge Palermo states that “the development of women's problems and inequality, in recent years, has allowed us to warn the invisibility of practices based on stereotypes, which are discriminatory.It is then imposed, greater attention for the person who must judge, alert that certain inequalities can go unnoticed, for the justice system ”.

For this magistrate, F.V.He suffered a context of violence and discrimination in his work for his status as a woman, as he was forced to wear shields that affected his modesty and his dignity.

He also suffered an unequal and discriminatory treatment in relation to his male partners who were allowed to use pants with more appropriate and safe pockets for the development of the tasks that was denied for the only reason for being a woman.

Original text published by Los Andes.