No compensation for discrimination

Case no. BS-62875/2023-HJR
Judgment delivered on 12 June 2024

A
vs.
Customer Journey Denmark ApS

Customer Journey Denmark ApS placed an advert on Jobnet for the position of mystery shopper. In the advert, it referred to the company’s website, which stated that you could not work as a mystery shopper if you were under a flexi-job scheme. A, who had been approved for a flexi-job, contacted the company to ask why flexi-jobbers were not eligible to apply for the mystery shopper position. The company replied that its set-up was not compatible with the use of flexi-jobbers.

The case concerned the issue of whether Customer Journey Denmark was liable to pay com-pensation to A for discrimination based on disability under the Danish Act on Prohibition against Discrimination.

The Supreme Court stated that for a person to claim compensation for infringement of their rights under the Act on Prohibition against Discrimination in relation to employment, they must, as a rule, have applied for a job with the employer. As it had to be considered that A had not applied for a position with Customer Journey Denmark, and as there was no basis for departing from the general rule, the Supreme Court held that A was not entitled to compensa-tion under the Act on Prohibition against Discrimination.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.