55 / 131
53
Cases of discrimination in employment
The FSG proposed two Roma girls whose profile corresponded to the job description.
After the first interview with the girl who was finally selected for the post, everything indicated that she was
going to be hired. They exchanged phone numbers and the girl visited the home of the woman who needed
her services.
The next day, however, the woman sent a text message to the girl saying that a family member was going to
take care of her daughter and therefore her services were not needed.
The girl told us that she didn’t understand since the woman herself told her that she didn’t have anyone to take
care of her daughter and that she was thrilled with this arrangement. She then told us that the issue of her eth-
nicity came up on the day she went to the woman’s home.
8.
Cuenca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
An FSG employment programmes beneficiary from Ciudad Real
filed a complaint at the Town Hall of the City of Minglanilla because she felt discriminated against for being Roma.
She told us that in the interview to get into the bee-keeping course offered by the Town Hall, they only asked
her two questions: whether he had a driving license and if she had any previous knowledge of bee-keeping.
The FSG suggested asking around to see if the other interviews were similar and they found that they were not.
Other interviews of successful candidates were much longer. In any case, this person met all of the requirements
called for to get on to this employment course.
Here again we see the great difficulty that many Roma have in finding a job when they have certain physical
traits that associate them with this ethnic group.
9.
Cuenca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
In early March 2013 a collaboration agreement was signed with
the Inditex group for seven Roma ACCEDER programme participants to engage in non-labour learning activities
in clothing stores: Pull & Bear, Stradivarius, Lefties, Kiddys Class and Berskha that the group has in the town of
Cuenca.
This practical experience was managed directly by the company representative at the head office who facilita-
ted the whole process so that everything would proceed seamlessly.
Before starting, the enterprise mediator visited all of the shops to meet the manager of each one and was cor-
dially received in every case.
The practical work experience was to begin on March 11th and the enterprise mediator and a social mediator
accompanied each participant to their assigned shops and again, were all cordially received.
Throughout the entire internship (which lasted until April 3rd, 2013), we had ongoing contact with the girls recei-
ving their practical training and the managers of each shop. Evaluation on both sides was very positive.
Once the training period had concluded, the enterprise mediator visited each of the shops to pick up the forms
and to get a final assessment of the experience. When she went to the Pull & Bear shop (two girls did their
training there), she discovered that there was a new manager who said that she had thrown the papers away
because the enterprise mediator had taken too long to come around to collect them and because the experience
had not been positive. When the enterprise mediator asked her why she thought that the experience was nega-
tive, especially considering that she had not supervised the training and the former manager had given them a
positive assessment, she said that it was because one of the girls went on sick leave for tendinitis the last week
of her internship. The enterprise mediator pointed out that her absence was justified by a medical report to
which the manager responded “with these people, it’s always the same story”. The enterprise mediator chastised
her saying that any worker, in training or an employee, may become indisposed. In this case the absence was
justified by a physician. She also told her that she had no business throwing away a document that served as
proof of training that had been agreed to by the representatives of the Inditex group.