Star Paper Corp. vs. Simbol et al.

, 2006

Facts:

 Three respondents namely Simbol, Comia, and Estrella were allegedly compelled to resign due
to the company policy of not allowing relatives of the third degree to be hired within the
company, as well as compelling the resignation of one of the spouses, should two employees get
married.
 These three individuals, though with different circumstances, all got married to co-workers and
were then allegedly pressured into resigning from their posts after they got married.
 Petitioners argue that this company policy was of management prerogative, stating that an
employer is free to regulate according to his own discretion and judgement all aspects of
employment. Petitioner contends that this company policy is in place to avoid nepotism in the
workplace.

Issue:

 WON the policy of banning spouses from working in the same company is a valid exercise of
management prerogative.

Ruling:

 No, in this instance, the court declared that this is not a valid exercise of management
prerogative. The courts then cited the practice of United States courts in tackling the issue of the
martial status rule citing the principle of “bona fide occupational qualification exception”.
 Anent to this the court also explained how the US challenged anti-nepotism policies wherein
they follow two theories of employment discrimination:
- Disparate treatment – plaintiff must prove that employment policy is discriminatory on
its face.
- Disparate impact – complainant must prove that a seemingly facially neutral policy has a
disproportionate effect on a particular class (this case falls into this category)
 The court stated that unless an employer can provide that the reasonable demands of the
business require a distinction based on marital status, and that there is no better available policy
to avail of these demands, an employer may not discriminate against an employee based on the
identity of the employee’s spouse.
 In this instance, there was no reasonable necessity that exists for the exception to attach. The
spouses were all hired and deemed qualified to perform their responsibilities before they got
married, and petitioners did not provide any reason that their marriage would be of detriment
to the company. This was emphasized by the fact that the spouses were in different
departments that don’t necessarily have direct effects over each other. (Production Helper x
Helper of the Cutting Machine)