The Supreme Court (SC) Ruled Against Employer’s No-Spouse Policy, Upholding Women’s Right to Choose a Spouse

 

 An employer's blanket policy of no-spouse employment is discriminatory. To justify its enforcement, the employer must clearly establish a reasonable business necessity. ..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 employee's spouse. This is known as the bona fide occupational qualification exception.

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.

Thus, a bona fide occupational qualification requires the concurrence of two elements: "(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."

Under the Magna Carta of Women, the State commits to eliminate discrimination against women and ensures their right to freely choose a spouse. Particularly, Article 134 of the Labor Code prohibits employers from discriminating women employees:

"ARTICLE. 134. Stipulation against marriage. It 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 actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.”

Weighed against the constitutionally mandated full protection to labor and the various statutory protections accorded to the sector, this Court finds that respondents failed to demonstrate the reasonable business necessity for its no-spouse employment policy.

First, the no-spouse qualification is not reasonably related to the bank's essential operation of its business. It unduly discourages all employees from marrying a fellow worker at the pain of termination. We adopt the National Labor Relations Commission's findings:

 

"The mere fear of the possibility that the spouses may divulge to each other information with respect to client's accounts is speculative, unfounded and imaginary. Respondent [One Network Bank] failed to specifically demonstrate and lay bare in what manner and instances would the climate of trust and security of its clients would be affected by complainant's marriage to her co-employee. If such is its primary concern, it could only formulate a company policy on confidentiality in the performance of one's duty, which may mete a graver penalty of dismissal in case of breach. Such policy is more concrete, tangible and real and not based on mere conjecture, unproven presumption of perceived fear of ruining the bank's integrity at the expense of complainant's right to security of tenure. The fear entertained by respondent [One Network Bank] was never translated into crystal clear circumstance or scenario which would convince us and see the light on the wisdom of the said policy. Mere generalities cannot defeat complainant's protection against illegal termination."

The National Labor Relations Commission's disposition was based on Star Paper Corp., the prevailing jurisprudence. We find that there is no iota of proof that supports respondents' assertion that petitioner's marriage to her fellow employee places the bank's funds at risk for embezzlement. The reasonable relation between a discriminatory policy and the employer's industry that shall excuse its implementation must be based on facts, not mere surmises. We agree that respondents' fear is more imagined than real.

CATHERINE DELA CRUZ-CAGAMPAN VS. ONE NETWORK BANK, INC., et al., G.R. No. 217414. June 22, 2022