Facts
The complainant, [A.], was employed as head of the personnel office in 2005 and was assigned to salary class 6, experience level 4. In 2007, she was promoted to salary class 5, experience level 6. In 2010, the employment relationship was dissolved. [A.] claimed that she had been discriminated against compared to her predecessor and successor, as they had received higher salaries. The cantonal court dismissed her complaint.
[A.] filed a complaint with the FSCA and claimed that the cantonal court had improperly restricted its review authority, thereby violating Art. 8 para. 3 sentence 3 Cst. as well as Art. 3 para. 2 and Art. 6 GEA.
Considerations
The FSCA examined whether the cantonal court had improperly restricted its review authority. It found that the cantonal court had not improperly restricted its jurisdiction, as it had reviewed the legal violations, the incorrect or incomplete establishment of the facts, and the inappropriateness of the decisions.
The FSCA also examined whether the pay discrimination had been credibly established. It found that the complainant had claimed pay discrimination compared to her predecessor and successor. However, the cantonal court had found that the pay difference between the complainant and her…