Stipulation Against Marriage
I. Title of the Case
Stipulation Against Marriage
Claudine de Castro Zialcita vs. Philippine Airlines (PAL)
II. View Point
Claudine de Castro Zialcita complained against Philippine Airlines (PAL) for dismissing her from her job by reason of her contracting marriage. Upon dismissing her the respondent of Philippine Airlines (PAL) invoked their policy which states that flight attendant applicants must be single and will be automatically separated from employment in the event that they subsequently get married. The complainant argued that the policy is a discrimination against married women, she mentioned about her co-workers that are married too and are not dismissed from their job by reason that they lied about their relationship status because of fear of losing their job. She also mentioned that the policy of PAL is illegal and unreasonable because of discrimination against women by having a marriage ban for women but not men. III. Time Context
Philippine Airlines (PAL) began life with a noble mission: to serve as a partner in nation-building. With this in mind, PAL took to the skies on 15 March 1941, using a Beech Model 18 aircraft amid the specter of a global war. It became Asia's first airline.
Philippine Airlines (PAL) has been the dominant air carrier in the Philippines since its creation in 1941. Operating both internationally and within the 7,100 islands that make up the country, PAL has been something of a curiosity and scandal among the world's major airlines.
Case No. RO4-3-3398-76 dated February 20, 1977 stated that complainant Claudine de Castro Zialcita, an international flight stewardess of PAL, was discharged last September 1975 from the service on account of her marriage. In separating Zialcita, PAL invoked its policy which stated that flight attendants must be single, and shall be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married. They claimed that this policy was in accordance with Article 132 of
Stipulation Against Marriage
Claudine de Castro Zialcita vs. Philippine Airlines (PAL)
II. View Point
Claudine de Castro Zialcita complained against Philippine Airlines (PAL) for dismissing her from her job by reason of her contracting marriage. Upon dismissing her the respondent of Philippine Airlines (PAL) invoked their policy which states that flight attendant applicants must be single and will be automatically separated from employment in the event that they subsequently get married. The complainant argued that the policy is a discrimination against married women, she mentioned about her co-workers that are married too and are not dismissed from their job by reason that they lied about their relationship status because of fear of losing their job. She also mentioned that the policy of PAL is illegal and unreasonable because of discrimination against women by having a marriage ban for women but not men. III. Time Context
Philippine Airlines (PAL) began life with a noble mission: to serve as a partner in nation-building. With this in mind, PAL took to the skies on 15 March 1941, using a Beech Model 18 aircraft amid the specter of a global war. It became Asia's first airline.
Philippine Airlines (PAL) has been the dominant air carrier in the Philippines since its creation in 1941. Operating both internationally and within the 7,100 islands that make up the country, PAL has been something of a curiosity and scandal among the world's major airlines.
Case No. RO4-3-3398-76 dated February 20, 1977 stated that complainant Claudine de Castro Zialcita, an international flight stewardess of PAL, was discharged last September 1975 from the service on account of her marriage. In separating Zialcita, PAL invoked its policy which stated that flight attendants must be single, and shall be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married. They claimed that this policy was in accordance with Article 132 of