Example acts of discrimination

1. Payment of lesseer compensation, including wage, salary or other form of remuneration and
fringe benefits to a female ee as against a male ee, for work of equal value;
2. Favorung a male ee over a female ee with respect to promotion, training oppurtunities, study
and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes

RA 9710 – MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN – comprehensive women’s human rights law that seeks to
elimante discrimination against women

Stipulations Against Marriage (Article 134 (A. 136) LC)

1. Zialcita vs. PAL – the provision in a contract between an airline company and a flight attendant
which states that “flight attendant applicants must be single and that they shall be automatically
separated form employment in the event they subsequently get married – declared NULL AND
VOID – contrary to A. 134

FACTS: Zialcita is a stewardess of PAL. She was fired from work because she had
gotten married. PAL argued and cited its policy that stewardesses must be single.
The policy also states that subsequent marriage of a stewardess shall automatically
terminate employment.

Zialcita anchored on Article 136 of the Labor Code. PAL sought refuge from Article
132.

2. Star Paper Corp. vs. Simbol, Comia and Estrella – The policies were struck down for violating the
REASONABL BUSINESS NECESSITY RULE:

Simbol was employed by the company and met a co-

employee and they eventually had a relationship and got married. Prior to the marriage, the m
anager advise the couple that should they decide to get married, one of them should resign pu
rsuant to a company policy: 1) new applicant will not be allowed to be hired if he/she has a rel
ative, up to 3rd degree of consanguinity, already employed by the company. 2) if the two empl
oyees got married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated first. Simbol resign
ed.

RULING
No, it is not a valid exercise of management prerogative and violates the rights of employees u
nder the constitution. The case at bar involves Article 136 of the Labor Code which provides “i
t shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of
employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly
that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated , or to ac
tually dismiss, discharge , discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by r
eason of her marriage.” The company policy of Star Paper, to be upheld, must clearly establish
the requirement of reasonableness. In the case at bar, there was no reasonable business neces
sity. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine Operator
, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of the Repacking Section, could be detrimental to its busin
ess operations. The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code bu
t it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it co
uld pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit di
sproportionate, effect. Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimina
tion in our jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners.

The courts that have broadly[26] construed the term marital status rule that it
encompassed the identity, occupation and employment of one's spouse. They
strike down the no-spouse employment policies based on the broad legislative
intent of the state statute. They reason that the no-spouse employment policy
violate the marital status provision because it arbitrarily discriminates against all
spouses of present employees without regard to the actual effect on the individual's
qualifications or work performance.[27] These courts also find the no-spouse
employment policy invalid for failure of the employer to present any evidence
of business necessity other than the general perception that spouses in the same
workplace might adversely affect the business.[28] They hold that the absence of
such a bona fide occupational qualification[29] invalidates a rule denying
employment to one spouse due to the current employment of the other spouse in
the same office.[30] Thus, they rule that unless the employer can prove that the
reasonable demands of the business require a distinction based on marital status
and there is no better available or acceptable policy which would better accomplish
the business purpose, an employer may not discriminate against an employee
based on the identity of the employees spouse.[31] This is known as the bona fide
occupational qualification exception.
We note that since the finding of a bona fide occupational qualification justifies
an employers no-spouse rule, the exception is interpreted strictly and narrowly by
these state courts. There must be a compelling business necessity for which no
alternative exists other than the discriminatory practice.[32] To justify a bona fide
occupational qualification, the employer must prove two factors: (1) that the
employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job
involved; and, (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially
all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the
duties of the job.[33]
The concept of a bona fide occupational qualification is not foreign in our
jurisdiction. We employ the standard of reasonableness of the company policy
which is parallel to the bona fide occupational qualification requirement. In the
recent case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and
[34]
Pedro Tecson v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., we passed on the
validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from
marrying employees of any competitor company. We held that Glaxohas a right to
guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other
confidential programs and information from competitors. We considered the
prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxos employees reasonable under the circumstances because
relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo. In laying
down the assailed company policy, we recognized that Glaxo only aims to protect
its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to
its secrets and procedures.[35]

3. Duncan Association of Detailman vs. Glaxo Welcome Philippines, Inc. – the prohibition against
marriage embodied in the ff stipulation in the employment contract
- The dismissal based on this stipulation in the contract is VALID exercise of mgt prerogative. The
prohitbition against personal or marital relationsips with ees of competitioer companies upon its
ees was held reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might
compromise the interests of the company.
- PURPOSE: protect the ER’s interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain
access to its secrets and procedures.

- FACTS:
- Pedro A. Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. as medical
representative. As stipulated in the contract signed and agreed by Tecson, The Glaxo
provides that an employee is expected to inform management of any existing or future
relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of
competing drug companies. If management perceives a conflict of interest or a
potential conflict between such relationship and the employee’s employment with the
company, the management and the employee will explore the possibility of a “transfer
to another department or preparation for employment outside the company after six
months.

- Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, an employee of

Astra Pharmaceuticals, a competitor of Glaxo. In 1998,Tecson married Bettsy, whilst
constantly reminded by the District Manager regarding the conflict of interest which
his relationship with Bettsy might engender. When Tecson failed to resolve the
conflicting issue, Glaxo offered Tecson a separation pay or to be transferred from
Camarines to Butuan-Surigao-Agusan sales area to which the former refused to abide.
Aggrieved, Tecson filed a petition to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) which affirmed Glaxo’s policy as valid. CA affirmed NCMB’s decision,
hence, this petition.

The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor

companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because
relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying down the
assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a
competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. Glaxo possesses the right to
protect its economic interests. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are
also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.

The company policy does not violate the equal protection clause. In the contractual provision
and the policy in its employee handbook, Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition
against relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies. Its employees
are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own choosing. What the
company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the
company that may arise out of such relationships.

DISABLED WORKESR