II PK 169/10 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal; employee must prove employer discrimination before claiming equal pay for discretionary bonuses.

Numero d'incarto II PK 169/10

Autorità giudiziaria Sąd Najwyższy

Giurisdizione

Polonia (PL)

Data della decisione 2011-01-21

Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)

Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by an employee seeking a discretionary annual bonus. The employee argued that non-payment violated equal pay principles, but the Court held that he failed to prove the employer discriminated against him based on protected grounds. Consequently, the burden of proof remained on the employee to demonstrate specific discriminatory reasons for the differential treatment.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 183a, 183b, 183c k.p.; Art. 94 pkt 9, 112, 113 k.p.: An employee claiming equal pay for discretionary bonuses must first substantiate a violation of non-discrimination rules; only then does the employer bear the burden to prove objective justification for the difference.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA

discretionary bonus equal pay principle employment discrimination burden of proof non-discrimination rules labor law cassation appeal

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Art. 105 k.p.

Art. 183a k.p.

Art. 183c § 1 k.p.

Art. 94 pkt 9 k.p.

Art. 112 k.p.

Art. 113 k.p.

Art. 183b § 1 k.p.

Art. 398 § 14 k.p.c.

art. 105 k.p

art. 217 § 2 k.p.c

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses labor dispute appeal citing lack of legal interpretation need and burden of proof issues.

Cassation dismissed claim for unequal treatment as employee failed to prove discrimination before burden shifted to employer.

Supreme Court allows gender pay discrimination claim for past salary differences and requires employer to prove objective justification.

I PK 188/07

Appeal court bound by procedural but not material claims; voidness considered ex officio.

Cassation appeal dismissed; equal work requires identical quantity and quality, not just same job title.

Special severance for group dismissals does not extend to employees dismissed before the regulation's entry into force.

Supreme Court dismisses claim that employment contract was void for evading social security law.

Supreme Court allows termination of collective agreement terms without union consultation if no new agreement exists.

III UK 150/05

Testo completo