判例译析｜闫佳琳诉浙江喜来登度假村有限公司平等就业权纠纷案

译者｜孙书朋 西政法学硕士

审稿｜董辰 中国政法大学

         岳文豪 上海交通大学

编辑｜杨蒙恩 烟台大学本科

         Izzy 美国西北大学LL.M.

责编｜陈逸漩 中国人民大学本科

*Guiding Case No. 185

 指导案例185号

(Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court, Released on July 4, 2022)

（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2022年7月4日发布）

Yan Jialin (Claimant ) v. Zhejiang Sheraton RESORT Co., Ltd. (Respondent)

(A Dispute over the Right to Equal Employment)

闫佳琳诉浙江喜来登度假村有限公司平等就业权纠纷案

Civil; the Right to Equal Employment; Employment Discrimination; Regional Discrimination

  民事/平等就业权/就业歧视/地域歧视

Employer’s discriminatory treatment of candidates based on the factors, such as regions and genders, that are not necessarily related to the intrinsic requirements for a certain job constitutes employment discrimination. Therefore, the people’s courts shall be in favor of the affected candidates when they initiate a litigation against employers for the infringement of the right to equal employment.

用人单位在招用人员时，基于地域、性别等与“工作内在要求”无必然联系的因素，对劳动者进行无正当理由的差别对待的，构成就业歧视，劳动者以平等就业权受到侵害，请求用人单位承担相应法律责任的，人民法院应予支持。

（图片来源于网络）

Article 3 & 26 of the Employment Promotion Act of the People’s Republic of China

《中华人民共和国就业促进法》第3条、第26条

In July 2019, Zhejiang Sheraton RESORT Co., Ltd.(“the company”) advertised a series of openings for in-house counsel and assistant to the chairman, through Zhaopin, a job-hunting platform. On 3 July 2019, Yan Jialin submitted her resume containing her name, gender, birthday, place of household registration (Nanyang, Henan), and current city of residence (Xihu District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang) in support of her application for the two positions through Zhaopin App. The notary certificate produced by Hangzhou Internet Notary Public Office established that after using Yan Jialin’s username and passwords to login in her account, the notary found that Yan Jialin’s application for the position of assistant to the chairman was read at 14.28 pm on 4 July 2019, which was followed by a rejection at 14.28 pm on the ground that she was from Henan. On the same day, her application for the in-house counsel was read at 14.28 pm, and rejected at 14.29 pm for the same reason. Also, Yan Jialin paid 1,000 yuan for notarization. Based on these facts, Yan Jialin filed an action with Hangzhou Internet Court, requesting for an order that the company shall make the amende honorable, pay solatium for mental harm, and bear the applicable costs.

2019年7月，浙江喜来登度假村有限公司（以下简称喜来登公司）通过智联招聘平台向社会发布了一批公司人员招聘信息，其中包含有“法务专员”“董事长助理”两个岗位。2019年7月3日，闫佳琳通过智联招聘手机App软件针对喜来登公司发布的前述两个岗位分别投递了求职简历。闫佳琳投递的求职简历中，包含有姓名、性别、出生年月、户口所在地、现居住城市等个人基本信息，其中户口所在地填写为“河南南阳”，现居住城市填写为“浙江杭州西湖区”。据杭州市杭州互联网公证处出具的公证书记载，公证人员使用闫佳琳的账户、密码登陆智联招聘App客户端，显示闫佳琳投递的前述“董事长助理”岗位在2019年7月4日14点28分被查看，28分时给出岗位不合适的结论，“不合适原因：河南人”；“法务专员”岗位在同日14点28分被查看，29分时给出岗位不合适的结论，“不合适原因：河南人”。闫佳琳因案涉公证事宜，支出公证费用1000元。闫佳琳向杭州互联网法院提起诉讼，请求判令喜来登公司赔礼道歉、支付精神抚慰金以及承担诉讼相关费用。

（图片来源于网络）

On 26 November 2019, Hangzhou Internet Court entered a judgement (No. 6405 [2019], First, Civil Division, HIC, Hangzhou) that a) the Respondent shall pay the Claimant for solatium for mental harm and bear reasonable expenses incurred by defending her rights in total of 10,000 yuan within ten (10) days of the date on which this judgement enters into force; b) the Respondent shall make an oral apology as well as a written one in Legal Daily within ten (10) days of the date on which this judgement enters into force. The content of the apology shall be verified by this court. The Respondent’s failure to do so will lead to this court publicizing the main body of this judgement on state-run media, and the costs so incurred shall be borne by the Respondent; c) other claims of the Claimant are rejected. After this judgement was pronounced, both Yan Jialin and the company appealed. On 15 May 2020, the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City rendered a decision (No. 736 [2020], Final, Civil Division, IPC, Hangzhou) to reject the appeal and affirmed the judgement of first instance.

杭州互联网法院于2019年11月26日作出（2019）浙0192民初6405号民事判决：一、被告喜来登公司于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿原告闫佳琳精神抚慰金及合理维权费用损失共计10000元。二、被告喜来登公司于本判决生效之日起十日内，向原告闫佳琳进行口头道歉并在《法制日报》公开登报赔礼道歉（道歉声明的内容须经本院审核）；逾期不履行，本院将在国家级媒体刊登判决书主要内容，所需费用由被告喜来登公司承担。三、驳回原告闫佳琳其他诉讼请求。宣判后，闫佳琳、喜来登公司均提起上诉。杭州市中级人民法院于2020年5月15日作出（2020）浙01民终736号民事判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。

（图片来源于网络）

The court found that the right to equal employment - both a social right and a private right granted by the civil law - should be enjoyed by every laborer as a fundamental right, which is an indication of their independent personality and free will. In terms of the civil law, the infringement of this right amounts to the violation of the essence of personality right - personal dignity, an essential ingredient of which is equal treatment. However, employment discrimination tends to severely insult job hunters, and even do harm to both their mental and physical health. Accordingly, laborers may bring an action to seek civil remedies for infringement of the right to equal employment.

法院生效裁判认为：平等就业权是劳动者依法享有的一项基本权利，既具有社会权利的属性，亦具有民法上的私权属性，劳动者享有平等就业权是其人格独立和意志自由的表现，侵害平等就业权在民法领域侵害的是一般人格权的核心内容——人格尊严，人格尊严重要的方面就是要求平等对待,就业歧视往往会使人产生一种严重的受侮辱感,对人的精神健康甚至身体健康造成损害。据此，劳动者可以在其平等就业权受到侵害时向人民法院提起民事诉讼，寻求民事侵权救济。

It has been established that both Yan Jialin’s applications with the company were rejected just for the reason that she came from Henan. This means the company classified applicants according to their place of origin, and gave Yan Jialin a treatment lower than that which should be given to other applicants under normal circumstances, i.e., rejected Yan Jialin’s application. Accordingly, the court found that the company offered a discriminatory treatment to Yan Jialin just because she was from Henan.

闫佳琳向喜来登公司两次投递求职简历，均被喜来登公司以“河南人”不合适为由予以拒绝，显然在针对闫佳琳的案涉招聘过程中，喜来登公司使用了主体来源的地域空间这一标准对人群进行归类，并根据这一归类标准而给予闫佳琳低于正常情况下应当给予其他人的待遇，即拒绝录用，可以认定喜来登公司因“河南人”这一地域事由要素对闫佳琳进行了差别对待。

（图片来源于网络）

Article 3 of the Employment Promotion Act of the People’s Republic of China prohibits employers from discriminating candidates based on ethnicity, race, gender, religious belief etc., which is an open-ended clause without exhaustive enumeration. Therefore, it stands to reason that, in addition to the aforesaid factors, other similarly unreasonable ones are also banned. Those factors, such as major, qualification, working experience, and work-related skills, which closely pertain to the intrinsic requirements for a certain job, can never fall within the purview of Article 3. However, if an employer recruit laborers based on ascribed factors, ranging from gender, household registration, region to age, appearance, ethnicity, race and religious belief, which are not necessarily connected to the intrinsic requirements for a certain job, this will constitute employment discrimination. As for ascribed factors, they refer to those which people have had since they were born, and they are unable to choose and control. As a mechanism designed to judge and regulate people’s behavior, law should not set unequal conditions for different laborers according to the factors beyond their choice and control. Instead, these factors should be eliminated because they put some laborers at a real disadvantage. Hence, it is arguably unjustifiable to get ascribed factors involved in the recruiting process since this will severely undermine equality and justice.

《中华人民共和国就业促进法》第三条在明确规定民族、种族、性别、宗教信仰四种法定禁止区分事由时使用“等”字结尾，表明该条款是一个不完全列举的开放性条款，即法律除认为前述四种事由构成不合理差别对待的禁止性事由外，还存在与前述事由性质一致的其他不合理事由，亦为法律所禁止。何种事由属于前述条款中“等”的范畴，一个重要的判断标准是，用人单位是根据劳动者的专业、学历、工作经验、工作技能以及职业资格等与“工作内在要求”密切相关的“自获因素”进行选择，还是基于劳动者的性别、户籍、身份、地域、年龄、外貌、民族、种族、宗教等与“工作内在要求”没有必然联系的“先赋因素”进行选择，后者构成为法律禁止的不合理就业歧视。劳动者的“先赋因素”，是指人们出生伊始所具有的人力难以选择和控制的因素，法律作为一种社会评价和调节机制,不应该基于人力难以选择和控制的因素给劳动者设置不平等条件；反之，应消除这些因素给劳动者带来的现实上的不平等，将与“工作内在要求”没有任何关联性的“先赋因素”作为就业区别对待的标准，根本违背了公平正义的一般原则，不具有正当性。

（图片来源于网络）

In this case, the company treated Yan Jialin’s application in a discriminatory way based on her homeplace, which falls into the category of ascribed factors. Since the company failed to establish that there existed a definitively internal relationship between Yan Jialin’s homeplace and the jobs she applied for or that it had other legitimate purposes to justify its decisions on Yan Jialin’s application, the discrimination was not reasonable, thus violating Article 3 of the Employment Promotion Act. Accordingly, the court found that the discrimination adopted by the company amounted to employment discrimination against Yan Jialin, damaging her rights to equal employment opportunities and treatment. The court also found that it was the company’s subjective fault that resulted in the infringement of Yan Jialin’s right to equal employment, and therefore, it shall make the amende honorable, pay solatium for mental harm, and bear reasonable expenses incurred by defense for legal rights.

本案中，喜来登公司以地域事由要素对闫佳琳的求职申请进行区别对待，而地域事由属于闫佳琳乃至任何人都无法自主选择、控制的与生俱来的“先赋因素”，在喜来登公司无法提供客观有效的证据证明，地域要素与闫佳琳申请的工作岗位之间存在必然的内在关联或存在其他的合法目的的情况下，喜来登公司的区分标准不具有合理性，构成法定禁止事由。故喜来登公司在案涉招聘活动中提出与职业没有必然联系的地域事由对闫佳琳进行区别对待，构成对闫佳琳的就业歧视，损害了闫佳琳平等地获得就业机会和就业待遇的权益，主观上具有过错，构成对闫佳琳平等就业权的侵害，依法应承担公开赔礼道歉并赔偿精神抚慰金及合理维权费用的民事责任。

(Adjudicators: Shi Qingrong, Yu Jianming and Kong Wenchao)

（生效裁判审判人员：石清荣、俞建明、孔文超）