Pregnant BPO employee wins discrimination case
The Supreme Court has ordered a business process outsourcing company (BPO) to pay the back wages and separation pay of a female employee, ruling that transferring her to a remote location due to her pregnancy constitutes constructive dismissal and violates the Magna Carta for Women.
In an Aug. 6 decision made public on Dec. 26, the high court’s Third Division granted Isabelle Francesca Paulino’s petition, reversing and setting aside the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that dismissed her complaint for constructive dismissal.
The high tribunal also ordered Sutherland Global Services Inc. in Clark, Pampanga, to pay her full back wages, separation pay and P250,000 in damages, along with attorney’s fees and interest.
Paulino was hired in 2016 as a senior training specialist at the firm’s office on Shaw Boulevard. She was recognized as the best trainer in 2017 and designated officer in charge training manager.
A year later, she became pregnant, and after she informed her manager, the company announced the transfer of all of its trainers to its Clark, Pampanga office.
Change of assignment
Paulino, a resident of Bulacan, agreed to the new assignment as it was just temporary. But hours later, the firm said it was assigning her to the Tarlac office.
The petitioner said that although she was provided hotel accommodation in Clark, she spent three and a half hours daily traveling to and from Tarlac. She added that she suffered motion sickness as a result, and when she felt too sick to work, the company ended the training sessions in Tarlac and assigned her to Clark.
After struggling with and experiencing more discrimination at work due to her pregnancy, Paulino resigned from the company on June 30, 2018.
She then filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, nonpayment of 13th-month pay and moral and exemplary damages.
The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, saying she was not forced to resign.
But this ruling was overturned in 2019 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which declared that Paulino was constructively dismissed because her resignation was triggered by the company’s “harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions.”
Left with no option
The CA, for its part, overturned the NLRC decision, saying there was no dismissal to speak of because the complainant “expressly and unconditionally” indicated her intent to resign.
In siding with the petitioner, the Supreme Court, in the G.R. No. 262564 ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Inting, noted that while Paulino’s first line in her resignation letter expressed intent to immediately resign, the tone of the succeeding 12 or more lines unmistakably showed that she “was left with no option but to leave” due to pregnancy discrimination.
“To the Court’s mind, the circumstances, taken collectively, demonstrate respondent et al.’s discrimination against petitioner on account of her pregnancy. Such discrimination constitutes not only constructive dismissal but also a violation of the Magna Carta for Women,” it said.
