2016 (Labor Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 14

[Answer/discuss the question below, or see 2016 bar exam Labor Law Instructions; 2016 Labor Law Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1315, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20; See also 2016 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

-XIV-

Tess, a seamstress at Marikit Clothing Factory, became pregnant. Because of morning sickness, she frequently absented herself from work and often came to the factory only four (4) days a week. After two (2) months, the personnel manager told her that her habitual absences rendered her practically useless to the company and, thus, asked her to resign. She begged to be retained, citing her pregnancy as reason for her absences. Tess asked for leave of absence but her request was denied. She went on leave nevertheless. As a result, she was thus dismissed for going on leave without permission of management.

Tess filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company’s defense: she was legally dismissed because of her numerous absences without leave and not because of her pregnancy. On the other hand, Tess argues that her dismissal was an act of discrimination, based as it was on her pregnancy which the company treated as a disease. Whose position is meritorious-the company’s or Tess’? Explain. (5%)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *