“…a middle-aged female person”: St.Gallen apartment advertisement causes discussion
An apartment is advertised for rent in St.Gallen – but only middle-aged women should be accepted. Is this discrimination, as is criticized, or is it just permissible? That’s what an expert says.
An apartment advertisement sparks discussions on Facebook.
Image: Imago
Apartment for rent. «To a working, middle-aged female person. Others are rejected.” This formulation causes discussions in the comments column of the Facebook group “You are from St.Gallen, if …”. An anonymous member shared the apartment listing in question in the group on Tuesday, November 5th. This with the following words: “It’s crazy how discriminatory the world is becoming. What do you think?” To date, 35 comments have accumulated under the post.
Some group members find clear words for the advertisement: comments such as “sex horror” and “I hope you don’t find any tenants” can be read under the post. There is also talk of impudence. Others stand by the author of the advertisement. One user writes: “It’s up to each landlord to decide what type of tenant they want in their property and which they don’t.” Two other users are of the opinion that “the landlord has the right to clearly define his expectations of tenants” and “Ultimately, the landlord always decides who is allowed to move in, even if it is not written down.”
The anonymous user who posted the screenshot of the ad then commented. He believes that it is wrong because there are both men and women who do not behave correctly. “You can’t lump everyone in the same pot. There are always good and bad people.”
The ad in question.
Screenshot: Comparis
Advertisement is not discriminatory
So the big question: Is such an advertisement permitted? Thomas Schwager, managing director and media spokesman for the Eastern Swiss Tenants Association, answered in the affirmative because, according to current case law, there was no discrimination in this case. This primarily relates to racism in the workplace: Questions about nationality, for example, are only permissible when it comes to the duration of the residence permit and thus the tenancy.
Schwager recommends speaking to the creator of the ad and asking about the reasons for this wording. However, a contact request from this newspaper to the advertiser remained unanswered.
Even if the advertisement in question is not discriminatory, it is not true – as one commenter assumed – that “the landlord has the right to clearly define his ideas about tenants”. The landlord is allowed to have his or her clear ideas and wishes for the new tenant. However, he is well advised not to mention this explicitly in the advertisement. When asked, Schwager wrote: “If an advertisement said that only prospective tenants with a Swiss passport were eligible, that would be discriminatory.”
The case from Altstätten went to the Federal Court
In 2013, an Altstätter also caused a stir with an apartment advertisement. His ad said: “No CH.” A then 65-year-old man filed a complaint against the landlord on the grounds that “this case is to be equated with discrimination against foreigners.” The case went all the way to the federal court, where the 65-year-old was ultimately dismissed. He had to pay court costs of 800 francs as well as his own legal fees.
The controversial advertisement in the “Rheintaler Bote” from September 2013.
Image: Gert Bruderer
More articles from these communities
