Even the Supreme Court can make a mistake – the term “employer” is misapplied in the context of meeting the quota for employing persons with disabilities
The Supreme Court of Ukraine, in its ruling, held that all “employers” must comply with the employment quota for people with disabilities, including attorneys’ associations. We agree with the outcome, but criticize the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning.
The Law of Ukraine “On the Fundamentals of Social Protection of Persons with Disabilities” clearly specifies who shall comply with the quota: legal entities and individuals using hired labor, but does not mention the term “employer.”
The Supreme Court, however, uses the broader and undefined term “employer,” relying on other laws that provide conflicting definitions. This substitution of terms creates legal uncertainty, as it potentially expands the circle of obligated entities beyond what the law actually prescribes. Examples such as foreign representations and diplomatic missions demonstrate how replacing the statutory list with the term “employer” can lead to unreasonable or unintended legal consequences.
The full version of the article is available in Ukrainian by the link.
Kind regards,
SIMILAR POSTS
Employment quotas for persons with disabilities: Ukraine’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of representative offices
257
The company is included in the data verification schedule with the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center: What are the next steps?
333
Grounds for appealing the liability of a company official for violation of military registration rules
706
Changes in labor legislation: Draft Labor Code (Part 4)
285
Changes in labor legislation: Draft Labor Code (Part 3)
350
Changes in labor legislation: Draft Labor Code (Part 2)
341
Changes in labor legislation: Draft Labor Code (Part 1)
747
Quota of workplaces for the employment of persons with disabilities: New rules effective from 2026
1006
Employment quota for persons with disabilities in representative offices: Where do the courts stand?
553
Changes to the organization of labor relations under martial law: A new law has been adopted
2940
A defendant without administrative procedural legal capacity is not a defendant
832
Dismissal for violation of the terms of work with confidential information
1331
Leave a comment







