A ruling from the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) addressed a controversial uniform policy in a fuel company, focusing on a chest-height promotional print on employee shirts. The court’s decision overturned a prior penalty of 25,000 euros and accepted the company’s stance that the advertisement did not discriminate against women more than men. This outcome was reported by EL PERIODICO, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, and centers on whether the campaign treated employees unlawfully by singling out women for a sexualized presentation on a work uniform.
The events trace back to January 2019 when the company issued new workwear that featured a printed slogan reading, “Ask me for the most advanced fuel on the market.” The design placed the text at chest level, aligning with the workers’ torsos. Several employees expressed discomfort because some customers reportedly stared at their chests as a result of the imagery and wording. The employees’ concerns were amplified by a sense that the campaign exploited female bodies in a way that could affect workplace dignity and focus.
In response, the CCOO union filed a complaint after the company declined to withdraw the uniforms or provide a viable alternative for employees who felt offended. At first, the Barcelona Social Court number 32 ruled in favor of the union, characterizing the practice as sexist and detrimental to gender equality. The company appealed, and the TSJC reversed that decision, ruling that the advertisement did not objectify women more than men and thus did not constitute direct gender discrimination.
“Moral Judgment”
The judges maintained that no direct discrimination based on gender had occurred because the shirts were identical for all employees. They argued that a direct example of gender discrimination would involve entirely different uniforms for women, such as requirements that female staff wear heels, makeup, and mascara, which recently drew scrutiny from Work Inspection at Vueling. The panel also found no evidence of indirect discrimination, where equal treatment might produce unequal effects in practice. This distinction was central to the court’s reasoning in dismissing the union’s claims.
Although breasts are frequently perceived as a sexualized aspect of the female body, the court considered the decision to place the brand message at chest height as not inherently discriminatory. The judges noted that in a broad social context, heterosexual men can also be drawn to advertising that highlights the chest region, and therefore the display did not constitute a differential treatment that would violate equality principles.
In its explanatory statement, the TSJC asserted that the inscription on the shirts represented a commercial claim directed at workers rather than an exclusionary statement about their gender. The decision argued that this approach failed to meet the bar of morality or equality violations in gender terms, despite ongoing public debates about the way female bodies are portrayed in advertising. The court’s position thus concluded that the raised concerns about potential sexualization did not translate into a legally actionable form of discrimination, leading to the annulment of the €25,000 fine against the company.
In summary, the ruling highlights a nuanced interpretation of equality in the workplace when commercial messages appear on employee attire. It emphasizes that a claim of discrimination requires clear evidence of unequal treatment tied to gender and not merely an appearance or perception of sexualization. The decision reflects broader tensions between the protection of workers’ dignity and the permissibility of commercial advertising within a work setting, a debate that resonates across similar cases where branding intersects with gender norms and professional attire. The court’s stance underscores the need for dialogue among employers, workers, and unions about the boundaries of permissible advertising in the workplace, balancing commercial interests with the goal of maintaining an inclusive and respectful environment for all employees. [Source: EL PERIODICO]