Decisions
Discrimination based on religion or belief in the organization of a school event
Religion, belief, school, direct discrimination, promotion of equality
Document number: YVTLTK XX/2023
Issued on: XX Oct 2024
In spring 2023, a school arranged a concert for all pupils during a school day in which the artist was a known missionary and a performer of religious music. Based on the information received on the content of the concert, the principal of the school had assumed that the concert was suitable for all pupils regardless of their religion or belief. Only during the concert had it become clear that the concert consisted of religious music. On the basis of the report presented, the Tribunal considered it undisputable that the concert had ultimately been an opportunity to practise Christianity.
The National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal was of the opinion that by organising a denominational event and not providing corresponding alternative activities for it, the school had in practice treated the applicant less favourably on the basis of religion or belief than the pupils whose religion had been in line with the event. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was a presumption of direct discrimination against the applicant because of their religion or beliefs.
The respondent argued that they had not intended to organise an opportunity to practise a religion. Instead, the intention was to organise an event suitable for everyone. The Tribunal stated that the respondent did not therefore argue that their actions were based on law or that there was an acceptable objective for the actions. The Tribunal was of the opinion that consequently, the respondent’s actions were a direct discrimination against the applicant on the basis of religion or belief and prohibited the respondent from repeating the discrimination. The Tribunal recommended that the respondent pay a compensation of EUR 1,500 to the applicant. In addition, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the school had neglected its obligation to promote the equality of pupils regardless of religion or belief when it had not properly ensured that the content of the event was universally humanist and thus suitable for all.
In autumn 2023, the city organised a concert at the applicant's school; the concert was similar those held for all pupils in the city on grades 1 to 6. The performer at the applicant’s school was one that played several instruments simultaneously and sang, and the performer's name was mentioned in the notification about the concert. According to the information provided by the applicant, the performer is known as a performer of Christian music, but no other account of the performer’s background had been presented. Based on the message sent to the guardian by the Communications Manager of Concert Centre Finland, the performer writes and performs non-religious songs about the lives of children and young people and the school concert consisted of such songs. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no presumption of discrimination and that the respondent’s communication about the concert had to be considered sufficient from the perspective of the duty to promote equality.
The parish choir had performed at the school in 2024, and the choir activities of the parish were presented in this event. The performance was arranged during the school day for all the school’s pupils on grades 3–6. The notification about the performance did not state that attending the event was voluntary for all pupils, not just those whose school day had ended before the event. The Tribunal stated that advertising the activities of the parish in an event common for all, especially without informing the pupils’ guardians about it in advance, was likely to put the pupils in an unequal position based on religion or belief, and at the very least did not promote equality of the pupils regardless of their religion or belief.
The Tribunal was of the opinion that the school had neglected its duty to promote equality insofar as it had failed to mention in its notification that the choir was a parish choir and the activities of the parish had been advertised in a common event. This assessment had to be made despite the fact that the performance of the choir was in itself suitable for everyone. The Tribunal obligated the applicant's school to take measures to promote equality.
(Final)
Multiple discrimination in the assessment of creditworthiness
Assessment of creditworthiness, authority, direct multiple discrimination, gender, language, age, place of residence, financial reasons, conditional fine
Register number: xx16/2017
Date of issue: xx.xx.2018
The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman requested that the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal to investigate whether a credit institution company was guilty of discrimination prohibited in section 8 of the Non-Discrimination Act by having refused to grant credit to A in connection with A making online purchases, based on matters classified as grounds of discrimination, such as gender, age, language, and their combined effect. The Ombudsman requested that the Tribunal prohibit the credit institution company from continuing such discrimination and repeating its discriminatory practices in its service operations and impose a conditional fine to enforce the prohibitive decision, of an amount the Tribunal considers sufficiently effective, proportionate, and cautionary.
The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman considered that even if an individual score is made up of statistical variables, the score in question was not an individual assessment based on the income level and financial status of the person in question, but a case of statistical profiling, which was mainly based on reasons related to grounds of discrimination.
The credit institution company considered that its decision not to grant credit to A did not result in the arising of a assumption of discrimination and that it has not discriminated against the credit applicant nor used discriminatory criteria in its credit extension. Even if a specific criterion may as such seem discriminatory, the company states that pursuant to section 11, subsection 1 of the Non-Discrimination Act, different treatment does not constitute discrimination if the treatment is based on legislation and has an otherwise acceptable objective and the measures to attain the objective are proportionate. According to the company, the methods it uses in the extension of credit to consumer clients for the purpose of attaining the acceptable objectives stated in the said Act as well as the use of statistical assessment methods for the purpose of assessing the financial standing of credit applicants as a part of the overall assessment have been unambiguously accepted.
Based on section 3 of the Non-Discrimination Act and its drafting history, the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal considered that the case of multiple discrimination at hand is within the scope of application of the Non-Discrimination Act, even though one of the criteria used in the assessment system for creditworthiness was gender. Furthermore, the Tribunal stated that it could not issue a decision on the matter without adopting a position on the interpretation of the Act on Equality between Women and Men, as this is a case of multiple discrimination in which gender is one of the grounds of discrimination. The Tribunal considered that the drafting history of the Non-Discrimination Act reveals that the Tribunal has the required authority to give its decision on the matter, also as regards its interpretation of the Act on Equality between Women and Men, even though the matter was not initiated by the Ombudsman for Equality or a central labour market organisation, as stated in section 20 of the Act on Equality between Women and Men.
According to the substantiated report presented by the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, the grounds for the scores in the scoring system used by the company for the assessment of creditworthiness, the purpose of which is to decide whether or not to extend credit to individuals, included several factors related to the person of the applicant, such as gender, language, place of residence and age, all of which have been prohibited as grounds for discrimination in the Constitution of Finland, the Non-Discrimination Act and the Act on Equality between Women and Men. This resulted in A being put in an unfavourable position in the assessment of creditworthiness and in the decision following the assessment on extending credit, which was based on a schematic assessment using prohibited discriminatory grounds. The National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal considered an assumption of direct multiple discrimination to have arisen in the matter.
Based on the information it has received, the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal considered the scoring system-based assessment used by the credit institution company to have used statistical data and payment default information related to other people, based on which assumptions regarding the financial standing of A were made. The company, on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination such as gender, first language, age, and residential area, assumed that the financial standing of A was weaker than it would have been if measured with other properties. At the same time, the company ignored the information regarding A’s own credit behaviour and creditworthiness even though these factors would have favoured extending credit to A. Disregarding such information about A by using formal and abstract statistical credit data based on the credit behaviour of others, without performing an individual assessment of A’s financial standing, was disproportionate and therefore not acceptable as intended by section 11 of the Non-Discrimination Act.
Therefore, the method used by the company for the assessment of A’s creditworthiness was not based on an individual assessment of A’s creditworthiness but a statistical assessment method that was essentially based on prohibited grounds of discrimination as defined in the Act on Equality between Women and Men and in section 8 of the Non-Discrimination Act.
As the method used in the assessment of the creditworthiness of the credit applicant was based on grounds of discrimination expressly prohibited in the Non-Discrimination Act, the Act on Equality between Women and Men and subsection 2, section 6 of the Constitution of Finland, the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal has taken the view that financial reasons could not be considered reasons that meet such particularly high requirements justifying different treatment based on the prohibited grounds of discrimination in credit extension.
The National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal concluded that the credit institution company was not able to rebut the assumption of discrimination that had arisen, and that the behaviour of the company toward A was a case of multiple discrimination as prohibited in the Non-Discrimination Act and the Act on Equality between Women and Men based on reasons related to the gender, first language, age and place of residence of A.
The National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal prohibited the credit institution company from renewing the procedure, targeted at A or anyone else, which the decision of the Tribunal found to be contrary to section 8 of the Non-Discrimination Act and section 8e of the Act on Equality between Women and Men.
The National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal imposed a conditional fine of 100,000 euros to enforce its prohibitive decision and decided, considering subsection 3, section 6 of the Act on Conditional Fines (Uhkasakkolaki, 1113/1990), that the decision of the Tribunal must be observed within six months of notification of the decision (vote on the sum of the conditional fine).
(Final)
Published 19.12.2024