Poland’s Social Insurer Defends Halting Benefits for Pregnant Women, Citing ‘Circumvention of Law’
The agency says it must verify employment eligibility, while the human rights ombudsman warns of potential discrimination.
Poland’s Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) has defended its practice of suspending sickness benefit payments to pregnant women while it investigates their eligibility, arguing that paying out before confirming entitlement would be against the law.
In a formal response to the Commissioner for Human Rights (RPO), ZUS stated that verifying a person’s title to social insurance is a fundamental part of its duties. The institution asserted its right to investigate whether an employment relationship is genuine before granting benefits.
ZUS contends that in any case of “justified doubts” regarding a key circumstance for benefit eligibility, including the very basis for insurance coverage, it is not only entitled but obligated to seek clarification.
“The payment of sickness benefits de facto before confirming eligibility for said benefits would be an action inconsistent with the provisions of the law,” ZUS stated. The agency emphasized that under the Sickness Benefit Act, payments can only be made after it has formally confirmed a person’s right to them.
The institution added that it processes payments promptly once eligibility is confirmed, typically no later than 30 days after the final necessary circumstance has been clarified.
‘An Expression of Care’ for Public Funds
ZUS framed its rigorous checks as a duty to taxpayers and a measure of fiscal responsibility. It described the thorough examination of insurance eligibility as “an expression of care for the proper expenditure of funds from the Social Insurance Fund.”
The RPO, however, has challenged this stance, highlighting that the Polish constitution guarantees special assistance to families in difficult material and social situations.
Citing court precedents, the ombudsman argued that the desire to obtain social security benefits as a motive for taking a job does not, in itself, prove an intent to circumvent the law. This is no different from other common goals for seeking employment, such as earning a living.
The RPO also referenced a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, noting that treating a pregnant employee differently based on an assumption of trying to abuse the system could be considered discrimination, as it is a suspicion that can only apply to women.
Furthermore, the ombudsman pointed out the practical difficulties for the women affected. “Women before and after childbirth do not have the strength or resources to actively participate in evidentiary proceedings and use appeal measures,” the RPO’s office stated.
