An amendment to the Labour Code adopted on 19 June 2026 introduces two new concepts: discrimination “by assumption” and discrimination “by association”. Once signed by the President, the amendment will enter into force three months after it is published.

What is discrimination “by assumption”?

A new Article 18³a § 4 of the Labour Code provides that discrimination also occurs when an employee is treated less favourably because of a characteristic attributed to them.

Example: A manager assumes that an employee is homosexual and, for this reason, does not assign them to work with a key client. It is irrelevant whether or not the assumption is true – what matters is that it influenced the employer’s decision.

What is discrimination “by association”?

The new provisions also cover situations where an employee is treated less favourably because of their connection with a person who has a protected characteristic.

Example: An employee does not practise Islam, but her husband does and runs a blog devoted to the rights of religious minorities. After this information becomes known, the employer decides not to assign her to a position requiring contact with key clients, believing that this could negatively affect the company’s image.

What does this mean for employers?

The new provisions increase the importance of making objective personnel decisions. There may now be disputes over simply proving that stereotypes, assumptions or associations relating to an employee did not influence a particular decision. In practice, employers should pay particular attention to several areas.

• Risk of the “halo” effect

One piece of information about an employee (for example, relating to their family, social activities or personal connections) may unconsciously influence the assessment of their abilities, availability or “fit” for a client or a team.

• Importance of managerial communication

In the event of such disputes, the outcome will often not be determined by documents, but by previous statements made by managers, such as “They will not be available anyway,” “The client may have a problem with this,” “It is better not to take the risk.” Such comments may be raised as evidence of the actual motives behind the employer’s decision.

• New evidentiary challenges

The subject of proceedings will no longer be about whether the employee actually has a specific characteristic, but whether the employer acted based on such a belief, or linked a decision to a third party. The focus of the dispute will shift from facts concerning the employee to the employer’s motives.

Find more articles in PRO HR July 2026