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 shop-per. 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.