KMU-Magazin Nr. 7/8, Juli/August 2026 When continuing education and training becomes a gender equality issue

Allocating continuing education and training courses based on workload, time availability or role may inadvertently put individual employees at a disadvantage. Different conditions for full-time and part-time staff are particularly sensitive. What the Gender Equality Act requires, and how to regulate access, cost coverage and time credits in a non-discriminatory manner.

Imagine the following situation: two employees with the same role and comparable performance. One has been attending seminars for years and is reimbursed for them – and this during his working hours. The other employee is only allowed to undertake the same continuing education and training on condition that she uses her own free time and pays half the costs herself. The difference? He works full-time; she – since the birth of her child – works part-time.

Is this permissible? And, in particular: do you know whether this is exactly what is happening in your organisation?

The Gender Equality Act

The Gender Equality Act (GEA) protects de facto equality in working life. The prohibition of gender-based discrimination applies “in particular” to basic and continuing education and training (Art. 3 para. 2 GEA). This covers access, selection, and conditions relating to costs, time and participation. The provision is mandatory and enforceable. Anyone allocating continuing education and training must act in a gender-neutral manner or be able to justify their actions in compliance with the GEA.

Direct discrimination occurs when gender or related characteristics (pregnancy, family circumstances) are used as criteria for decisions on continuing education and training.

Indirect discrimination occurs when a person selects formally neutral criteria which, in practice, affect one gender significantly more – without a legitimate, work- or business-related objective and without proportionality.

Rules that typically raise concerns include those restricting access to continuing education and training to full-time staff, those that rigidly require evening or weekend sessions, and those concerning cost or time credits that are applied generously in male-dominated sectors but restrictively in female-dominated ones.

The decisive factor in the assessment is always the objective functional relevance and whether less restrictive measures would be available. Part-time work is particularly exposed. If part-time employees are systematically excluded from continuing education and training, this statistically affects women more frequently – a classic test for indirect discrimination. The same applies to offers that differ in their structure between units that are, in effect, segregated by gender. In all these scenarios, the law requires more than simply the justification: “That’s how we’ve always done it!” What is required is a robust, proportionate justification of the means used to achieve the ends.

Outlining the discrimination

In cases relating to continuing education and training, it is sufficient for the person concerned to provide prima facie evidence of discrimination (Art. 6 GEA). The legal consequence is a presumption of discrimination. Subsequently, the burden of proof lies with the employer: either they refute the alleged facts, or they justify the unequal treatment objectively on the basis of a legitimate aim as well as an appropriate and necessary means. Anyone who fails to document criteria, decisions and considerations is therefore structurally weakening their defence.

In the event of discrimination in relation to continuing education and training, the person concerned may demand that the discrimination be ceased, that it be stopped and that a confirmation be made. (Art. 5 para. 1 lit. a – c GEA). Where continuing education and training is a prerequisite for salary rises or promotions, payment of the salary due may also be considered. This is calculated on the basis of the difference between the salary received and the one that would have been received had there been no discrimination, within the five-year limitation period.

In the event of a serious infringement of personal rights, compensation for pain and suffering may also be awarded in exceptional cases, and claims for damages remain reserved (Art. 5 para. 5 GEA). In practice, particularly in such cases, the burden of proof is set very high and presents a major obstacle for the claimant. The claim is aimed at restoring the lawful status quo. In practical terms, this often means: giving the opportunity to complete the continuing education and training they could not take or providing an equivalent alternative, as well as fair compensation. The consequences of a lawsuit therefore often include significant internal costs and resources, the need to amend internal guidelines, and reputational risks.

Impact on careers

However, continuing education and training also has a subtle yet significant influence on promotion and salary. Those who are denied access often find the next step in their career closed off to them, or can only achieve it after a considerable delay. As a result, the pay gap widens gradually, year after year. The legislator has recognised this and deliberately included continuing education and training in Art. 3 para. 2 GEA. The reduced burden of proof under Art. 6 GEA also takes this finding into account: discrimination in continuing education and training rarely takes the form of a blatant rejection, but is instead concealed within structures, habits and unwritten rules. Structural discrimination creeps in quietly. This is precisely why the law requires only a prima facie case and not full proof.

Where continuing education and training acts as a door opener for a career, companies with opaque or stereotypical rules create an unfavourable evidence. However, those who define sets of criteria (purpose, suitability, necessity), document comparisons in a comprehensible manner and justify exceptions significantly strengthen their position in defending against claims and reduce the amounts in dispute. Conversely, blanket exclusions – such as the rule that part-time employees are not paid for seminars at weekends or that they may only attend seminars on their days off – are paving the way for proceedings before the conciliation authority. In practice, such proceedings often end in a settlement and corresponding payments.

Practical guidelines for non-discriminatory continuing education and training

• Clear, gender-neutral eligibility criteria based on job functions; defined objectives for each measure (competence, role, regulatory requirements).
• Assess and document suitability for part-time work. Where this is not possible, consider less restrictive alternatives (different time slots, hybrid formats, modular pathways).
• Standardised conditions for cost and time credits; deviations only where objectively required by the role.
• Document decision-making processes in writing; consider comparison groups (Who benefits? Who is excluded?). This is arguably the most important step in establishing exonerating evidence.
• Raising awareness amongst the management: continuing education and training is not about managing benefits, but a form of HR policy relevant to gender equality, with direct implications for pay and career progression.

More than just compliance

Back to the original question: do you know who in your company receives continuing education and training – and who is systematically left out? If you hesitate to answer, this is not a criticism, but rather a reason to take a critical look at your existing continuing education and training practices. This includes monitoring and implementing the necessary preventative measures within HR processes and internal guidelines – before the postman rings the doorbell with a conciliation request. Those who formulate clear criteria today, document decisions and invest in gender-neutral structures not only protect themselves from liability, but also build a continuing education and training culture that complies with the law and benefits the company. This is not merely a compliance compulsory exercise. It is professional human resources management within the framework of the applicable law.