A Case Study on Equality Before the Law - Has Finland Been Able to Protect Its Womenin Layoffs Involving Lethal Mold?

Abstract

Finland has extensive workplace protections to safeguard employees’ health and prevent dismissals disguised as cost-cutting when the true issue is mold, creating expenses for building owners. Yet none of these legal protections shielded Ada. As an Industrial Safety Manager, she was threatened with legal consequences if she failed to demand action, but when she did request intervention, she was dismissed and left with a severe, life-threatening mold-induced disability. For a single mother of three building a home, the outcome is a profound miscarriage of justice. Although mold is common, authorities are obligated to enforce the law and protect employees from occupational illness, yet every authority failed Ada, revealing systemic ignorance and inconsistent practices that blocked her from getting compensation for mold-induced occupational disease. Using a cross-disciplinary doctrinal method, this work exposes structural barriers and gendered inequalities that still limit women’s access to justice. Based on Finnish laws and Ada’s clear evidence, she should have been compensated for unlawful dismissal and severe disability; her blood tests even showed antibodies matching the mold found at work. Seemingly, the governmental officers and legal representation display complacency, as the cases are handled in a conveyor-belt fashion. Thus, a governmental and legal “revolution” is required to enforce the laws as they dictate, and employ business-minded performance targets for the official, as this research presumes that helping people is the baseline for establishing various agencies. However, these employments can never exist to permit the absolute or arbitrary exercise of power, and real monitoring is a must.

Related Publications