Unjustified refusal of employment as a type of discrimination

It has been argued that in practice, there is a violation of the rights of a candidate for employment by the employer at the stage of employment in the form of an unjustified refusal to employ. By the way, there are high-profile cases of refusal to hire without the employer explaining the reasons. Discrimination destabilizes labour relations, violates the right to work, and leads to labour disputes. It is concluded that an employer may discriminate against an employee in employment based on a false perception of a particular disease. It is emphasized that an employer is prohibited from denying employment to persons living with HIV/AIDS. The ILO Recommendation № 200 is analysed, the norms of which reflect the need to strengthen preventive measures in the workplace and to ensure access to treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS or affected by it. It calls for the development and adoption of national tripartite policies and programmes on HIV/AIDS in the workplace, as well as their integration into the overall national policies and programmes on HIV/AIDS. It presents a view on the need to respect the fundamental human rights of all workers, including the right to be free from compulsory HIV testing and disclosure of HIV status, while emphasizing the encouragement of all to undergo voluntary confidential HIV counselling and testing as early as possible. If during employment the employer requires HIV test results or does not hire without such results, which resulted in an unjustified refusal to hire, then the candidate for employment has the opportunity to protect his rights by using the following algorithm: 1) receiving a refusal (oral or written) to hire; 2) applying to court for protection of violated rights; 3) contacting specialists of the State Labour Service. Another category of persons who often suffer from discriminatory actions by employers, both at the stage of employment and in the course of work, has been identified: internally displaced persons. It has been stated that it is quite difficult to track and prove the unfoundedness of the refusal to provide employment to internally displaced persons. In addition, it is impossible to introduce by law any compulsory provision of certain benefits to internally displaced persons in the event of employment. It has been proven that the categories of persons who cannot compete on an equal footing in the labour market and are subject to discrimination in employment include persons released after serving a sentence or compulsory treatment.