Equbusiness book VERSION 28SEPT2023 - Flipbook - Page 93
offers a solution, presenting women with an alternative and fostering greater female participation in corporate
boards. This regulation has the potential to influence women's decisions regarding board participation,
promoting equal opportunities for all candidates. Additionally, it may alleviate the concerns of selectors or
electors when considering the inclusion of women on corporate boards.
For instance, the law grants mothers two distinct periods during which they can exercise the right to be revoked.
The first period is before the birth, allowing for a 6-week timeframe, as specified in the Act on the Protection of
Mothers at Work (Art. 3). Following the birth, a second period of 8 weeks becomes available. In total, a board
member can utilize the right to be temporarily revoked for up to 14 weeks. This provision establishes a unique
right and protective measure for mothers within the corporate board, allowing them to be temporarily exempt
from their board duties. Importantly, this right encourages women who plan to have a baby to participate in
corporate boards, even in the early stages of their lives. Consequently, it supports not only gender diversity, but
also age diversity in corporate boards.
7.4.2.3. LITHUANIA
As a post-communist country, Lithuania stands out as an essential case in Europe, earnestly striving to address
gender diversity among its citizens. The Lithuanian government's commitment to gender equality predates many
European counterparts, with efforts initiated after the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995. Although the
conceptual groundwork began at that time, substantial legal advancements followed the conference, particularly
with the enactment of the Law on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (EOL) on March 1, 1999 (Office of
the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson).
In tandem with the EOL, the Lithuanian government established the Office of the Equal Opportunities
Ombudsperson, mirroring Sweden's Equality Ombudsman in various aspects (Avdeyeva, 2009). Due to the close
ties between Sweden and Lithuania, this institution has played a pivotal role in fostering diversity within the
Lithuanian community. The EOL entrusts this office with the supervisory duty of enforcing the law, encompassing
monitoring its implementation and addressing complaints about violations (EOL 19). Individuals who perceive
themselves as victims of discrimination or harassment hold the right to approach the Office of the Equal
Opportunities Ombudsman (EOL 17). Notably, the EOL ensures that anyone subjected to discrimination possesses
the right to seek compensation from the alleged perpetrators, be it for material or non-material damages (EOL
18).
However, despite Lithuania's multifaceted initiatives since 1999, gender equality in the corporate realm has not
received commensurate attention from the government. While workplace discrimination is acknowledged as a
violation of equality, the absence of specific legislation addressing diversity in corporate boardrooms is
conspicuous. The Law on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (EOL) serves as the primary safeguard for
women in corporate spheres, allowing them to file complaints regarding direct or indirect discrimination based
on gender. In theory, these provisions could empower corporate managers to contest unequal opportunities.
However, empirical evidence suggests that despite these legal provisions, the corporate landscape in Lithuania
remains inadequately diverse in terms of gender representation.
Of particular concern are provisions that place the burden of proof on the complainant, rendering it practically
impossible for a manager to contest discriminatory practices within their own company internally. At the
conclusion of legal proceedings, the court's sole recourse is often limited to monetary compensation for instances
of discrimination. In the best-case scenario, the company may compensate the affected party and continue with
its existing practices. Conversely, in a less favorable scenario, the company might choose to terminate the
manager's employment even after compensating them. Considering the extended duration of legal judgments,
placing the entire onus on individual managers proves inadequate for fostering a diverse corporate board in
