Ms. Zhang (pseudonym) joined a certain science and trade company in August 2022 as a finance manager, and the two parties signed a written labor contract. In February 2024, Ms. Zhang gave birth to a son and lawfully took maternity leave. After the maternity leave ended, Ms. Zhang returned to work in August of the same year. Due to business reasons, the company negotiated with Ms. Zhang about a job transfer or termination of the labor relationship. Since the two parties did not reach an agreement, in September 2024, the company issued a "Job Transfer Notice" to Ms. Zhang, changing her position from finance manager to assistant of the general management office. Ms. Zhang considered the transfer unreasonable and refused it, continuing to clock in at her original position. Subsequently, the company removed her from the "management group" and the company's main group, and deactivated her DingTalk clock-in permissions. Ms. Zhang clocked in via video and kept evidence, but the company did not restore her permissions.

Ms. Zhang then applied for labor dispute arbitration, requesting the company to pay compensation for illegal termination, the difference in maternity wages, and so on. After the arbitration ruling, both parties were dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit in court. The Haidian Court, after trial, ruled that the science and trade company should pay Ms. Zhang more than 130,000 yuan in total, including compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract and the difference in maternity wages.

Case Summary

Ms. Zhang stated that after returning to work from maternity leave, the company unilaterally demoted her from finance manager to assistant, which constituted malicious job transfer. After she refused the unreasonable arrangement, the company removed her from work groups and canceled her clock-in permissions, preventing her from working normally. The company's actions constituted illegal termination of the labor contract and should be compensated. Additionally, the company did not pay her full maternity and nursing period wages, which should be supplemented.

The science and trade company argued that it did not issue a written notice of termination of the labor contract, and therefore it should not be considered as illegal termination. Ms. Zhang’s refusal to accept the job transfer should be regarded as absenteeism. Furthermore, the agreed salary with Ms. Zhang was only 3,000 yuan, so there was no arrears of high wages or differences in maternity pay.

Court Trial

After trial, the court held that Ms. Zhang was in the breastfeeding period and under special legal protection. Since the company failed to negotiate a transfer successfully with Ms. Zhang, it unilaterally issued a demotion notice, removed her from the WeChat work group, canceled her DingTalk permissions, and stopped paying her wages. These actions indicated that the company refused to continue performing the labor contract, constituting illegal termination and requiring compensation. Regarding the salary standard, although the labor contract stipulated a low salary, according to actual payment records and payroll, Ms. Zhang's actual monthly salary was 20,000 yuan. Based on actual performance, the court determined the base for calculating maternity wages and compensation, and ordered the company to make up for the difference in maternity wages and nursing period wages.

After the verdict, the science and trade company appealed. The second-instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. This judgment is now in effect.

Judicial Opinion



Article 5 of the "Special Provisions on the Labor Protection of Female Employees" clearly stipulates that employers shall not reduce the wages of female employees, dismiss them, or terminate their labor or employment contracts due to pregnancy, childbirth, or breastfeeding. This provision provides a solid legal shield for female employees during the 'three periods.' In this case, the employer, during the employee's breastfeeding period, took measures such as removing her from the work group and canceling attendance permissions because a job transfer negotiation failed, which in essence blocked the conditions for the employee to provide labor. The series of actions in this case, including job transfer and demotion, cancellation of work permissions, and withholding of wages, collectively indicate the employer's intention to refuse to fulfill the labor contract. The law provides special protection for female employees during the 'three periods,' and employers are not allowed to arbitrarily reduce wages or terminate contracts. Regarding job transfers, the principle of reasonableness must be followed, and consensus with the employee must be reached. Employers attempting to use 'fancy maneuvers' to reduce the benefits of female employees during the breastfeeding period, affecting their normal labor conditions, should bear the corresponding legal consequences.



When employees encounter such situations, they should focus on retaining work records, communication recordings, screenshots of being removed from group chats, and other evidence, and seek legal assistance in a timely manner. Employers should also comply with legal requirements in employment and must not try to evade legal responsibility through 'fancy maneuvers.'



(All characters mentioned in the text are pseudonyms)


This article is reprinted from the WeChat public account 'Beijing Haidian Court,' with thanks!