Dismissal linked to pregnancy and the compensation question
Dismissal of a pregnant employee, especially when the grounds are weak, is not this inevitable fate. The Supreme Court clarified in a decision accessible to El Periódico de España, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, that compensation for moral damage arises in such cases when a civil right, like equality, has been violated. The ruling aligned with earlier positions from Madrid’s court and later the Supreme Court of Justice, and concerns a worker who was part of the Royal Spanish Football Federation before the Rubiales era.
The woman in question had been employed since March 2012 and was dismissed along with colleagues in October 2021. In the dismissal letter, the Federation cited a “persistent and voluntary decrease in performance” as the reason, even though her performance had been considered normal. The 9th Social Court of Madrid declared the dismissal null and void the moment the company was notified of the pregnancy. It ordered immediate readmission and payment of back wages, but did not address the request for compensation related to the violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination.
The Supreme Court highlighted a longstanding doctrine about disciplinary investigations into presumed misconduct by pregnant workers. When a claim of discrimination is not clearly proven, the question remains whether there is a basis for nullifying the disciplinary action in relation to equality and fundamental rights. In such cases, compensation for non‑pecuniary damages should be granted only if a specific violation of equality or another fundamental right is demonstrated.
The Court noted that the compensation is not automatic. It is contingent on proving a concrete breach of the right to equality or another fundamental liberty. In this instance, the Court, agreeing with the lower court, found no proof of discriminatory intent or a violation of fundamental rights, including the absence of a clearly indicated panorama of discrimination that would justify the application of the norm in question.
Risk of job loss is a central issue. The Constitutional Court has recognized that working women face a heightened risk of job loss due to maternity. The matter is not only about unequal pay but also about the effectiveness of gender nondiscrimination in labor relations. The Court underscored the seriousness of this problem with statistics showing the higher rate at which women exit the workforce due to pregnancy-related reasons and reaffirmed that justice must resolve these tensions.
However, the solution cannot rely on a blanket, automatic warranty. Legislation requires objective and reasonable justification, and the measures taken by employers must be proportionate and well-founded with regard to their employees. In this case, several factors suggested a less likely discriminatory motive: the timing of the pregnancy notice coinciding with the dismissal letter and the departure of five other workers. The penalty, if any, would be limited to the typical consequences of any nullification declaration, such as restoring pay that was not received and addressing any related costs.
The decision also points to the broader doctrine that pregnancy should not automatically trigger employment sanctions. The court noted that knowledge of pregnancy by the employer is not by itself enough to prove discrimination. The protective aim is clear, yet the evidence must establish a violation of equality and non-discrimination before compensation for non-pecuniary damage can be awarded. The ruling cautions against assuming discriminatory intent without solid proof.
Ultimately, the judges called for a nuanced approach: discrimination claims require concrete proof of violations for compensation to be warranted. In the absence of such proof, the employee’s case would be dismissed or resolved through standard remedies, such as compensation for any unpaid wages and related costs. The ruling emphasizes that pregnancy-related protections are a cornerstone of labor rights, but they must be proven through factual evidence rather than assumed from circumstance alone. [Fuente: Tribunal Supremo; otras resoluciones relevantes del sistema judicial español; resumen doctrinal]}
Contextual overview and implications
The ruling situates pregnancy within a framework of equality and non‑discrimination that governs modern labor relations. It reiterates the need for objective justification in employment decisions and keeps the door open for compensation when a breach of fundamental rights is established. The decision does not diminish the seriousness of gender-based discrimination; instead, it clarifies the evidentiary threshold required to award damages beyond lost wages.
In practical terms, employers are reminded to document performance issues with care and to ensure that any disciplinary decisions are free from gender bias. The case also reinforces the principle that discrimination cannot be inferred from outcomes alone; it must be supported by demonstrable intent or a clear pattern of unequal treatment tied to protected characteristics.
From a policy perspective, the decision signals that civil and labor courts will scrutinize the balance between legitimate business needs and the rights of pregnant employees. It underscores the necessity of timely accommodation and fair processes to protect workers while acknowledging that not every adverse outcome constitutes unlawful discrimination. The overall message is one of measured, evidence-based adjudication that protects workers without undermining legitimate organizational interests.