On 20 August 2025, the Labour Court of Sweden (Arbetsdomstolen) delivered its judgment in Dom nr 57/25, concerning joined cases A 81/23 and A 86/23, Sveriges Lärare v Municipality of Burlöv and Municipality of Varberg. The dispute arose after two pregnant teachers were prohibited from working during the COVID-19 pandemic for health and safety reasons. With no alternative duties available, they were placed on unpaid leave and received only pregnancy allowance (graviditetspenning) from the Social Security Agency of Sweden (Försäkringskassan), which was capped and lower than their normal salaries.
The Labour Court held that Article 11(1) of the Pregnant Workers Directive (92/85) has direct effect and binds municipalities as public employers. It ruled that pregnant employees prohibited from working for health reasons are entitled to income equivalent to their basic salary and position-related supplements, not merely a capped social insurance benefit. Because Swedish law did not secure this level of protection, the municipalities were obliged to pay the difference under the Directive. The Labour Court also found that the failure to ensure full income constituted direct discrimination on grounds of gender under both national law and EU law, awarding each teacher compensation for lost salary and damages for discrimination suffered.
Background and Facts
During the COVID pandemic, two teachers were prohibited from working for health and safety reasons after risk assessments concluded that their duties as teaching exposed them to an elevated risk of severe illness and premature birth if they became infected with COVID.
Unable to perform their regular duties and with no alternative work available, the two teachers were placed on leave without pay. Instead, they received a pregnancy allowance (graviditetspenning) from the Social Security Agency of Sweden (Försäkringskassan), calculated at approximately 80% of income, up to a statutory ceiling. For the two teachers, this decision resulted in a substantial income loss for them because their actual salaries exceeded the ceiling.
The teachers union in Sweden (Sveriges Lärare) brought legal proceedings on their behalf again their employers – two municipalities, the Municipality of Burlöv (Burlövs kommun) and the Municipality of Varberg (Varbergs kommun) – arguing that under Article 11(1) of the Pregnant Workers Directive (Directive 92/85), pregnant workers prohibited from working for health reasons are entitled to maintain their employment rights, including pay or adequate allowance. For the teachers union, they argued that the municipalities’ failure to ensure full income constituted discrimination on grounds of gender under Swedish law and EU law.
The municipalities countered that Swedish law implemented the directive through pregnancy allowance and optional parental leave benefits, and that any shortfall was a matter for the state, not local employers.
Article 11(1) of the Directive states:
‘In order to guarantee workers within the meaning of Article 2 the exercise of their health and safety protection rights as recognized in this Article, it shall be provided that:…in the cases referred to in Articles 5, 6 and 7, the employment rights relating to the employment contract, including the maintenance of a payment to, and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance for, workers within the meaning of Article 2, must be ensured in accordance with national legislation and/or national practice…’
Judgment of the Labour Court of Sweden
The Labour Court began by stating that Article 11(1) of the Pregnant Workers Directive is sufficiently clear, precise, and unconditional. Therefore, it has direct effect, and thus obliges Member States to ensure that pregnant workers prohibited from working for health and safety reasons retain their contractual rights, including pay or an equivalent allowance.
It therefore rejected the municipalities’ argument that the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Directive in Sweden through social insurance absolved them of responsibility. While national law in Sweden provides pregnancy allowance, the level of compensation fell short of the directive’s standard, as interpreted by the CJEU. For the Labour Court, such income must at least equal the worker’s basic salary and position-related supplements. Since the Social Security Agency of Sweden cannot apply the directive directly, as confirmed by a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen), the obligation shifted to the municipalities as public employers.
The Labour Court therefore found that municipalities, as emanations of the state, are bound by EU law when acting as employers. They were therefore required to ensure that the income of the teachers in question during the work prohibition matched their normal salary (including allowances). The fact that the teachers received partial compensation from the Social Security Agency of Sweden did not relieve the municipalities of this duty.
The Labour Court then addressed the discrimination claim. It found that the two teachers suffered a clear disadvantage – income loss – directly linked to pregnancy. Under Equal Treatment Directive (2006/54), less favourable treatment connected to pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of genders.
The municipalities’ argued that the teachers could have mitigated their loss by taking parental leave during the last 60 days of pregnancy, which would have triggered higher benefits and contractual supplements. The Labour Court dismissed this reasoning, because forcing women to use parental leave to compensate for income loss caused by a health-related work prohibition would undermine the purpose of the Pregnant Workers Directive and reduce their post-birth leave entitlement. Such an interpretation of the municipalities would also perpetuate gender inequality, as men have equal rights to parental leave.
In deciding upon damages, the Labour Court found that 40,000 SEK (€3,600, approx.) per teacher, plus their lost salary, should be awarded to each teacher, as well as legal costs.
Read the judgment
The judgment (nr 57/25) of the Labour Court of Sweden (Arbetsdomstolen) in joined Case 81/23 and Case 86/23, Sveriges Lärare v Municipality of Burlöv and Municipality of Varberg, delivered on 20 August 2025, can be read here.