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.<\/p>\n
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.”<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n