On October 4, 2014, a pregnant woman had to go through an opposition exam to be able to access a fixed nursing home, but coincidentally the day before she went into labor, so she told the examining court that she could not do it. Despite this, an examiner appeared at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid when the mother was already dilated by 8 centimeters, had been given oxytocin, epidural anesthesia and her baby was being monitored.
He was told that he was either testing at that time or would be excluded from the selection, so she asked to stop her birth to examine herself, but then asked for the nullity. Now Justice is right, because it considers that their rights were violated.
It was a test of 100 questions that had to be answered in two hours. Seeing that he had no choice, requested that the administration of oxytocin be stopped and the dose of epidural anesthesia be increased to relieve the intense pain of childbirth. After taking the exam, which he suspended, he returned to the parlor, where he gave birth to a girl.
A few days after giving birth, when she recovered, the woman submitted a letter to the Madrid Health Service (SERMAS) to request the nullity of her exam due to the conditions in which she had given it. Now, almost three years later, the Superior Court of Madrid has issued a judgment according to which the examining court acted against the fundamental rights of women and the right to reexamine is recognized.
"Conclude the performance of an exercise under penalty of having him declined in the same in the specific and very particular physical and psychic circumstances in which he was (the opponent) repugnant the slightest common sense, or supposed a major lack of more minimal sensitivity, than also, but it is impossible to understand from reasonable parameters, which means that it cannot, under any circumstances, be understood as protected by law, "the sentence dictates.
Discrimination arising from maternity
Can you really not make an exception in a circumstance of force majeure such as childbirth? Where is the sensitivity and common sense of people?
According to the TSJM, the examining tribunal should have postponed the examination since otherwise the fundamental rights of access to a public office are violated on equal terms. The Equality Law that prohibits discrimination derived from maternity has not been respected.
What would you have done instead? Would you have done the exam? Maybe he would not have been able to request the nullity and be entitled to a new opportunity. A difficult decision to make at a time of extreme vulnerability for a woman.
