On July 2, 2024, "mautskebeli" published screenshots on social media of official correspondence between managers at Evolution Georgia. These screenshots revealed calls for physical violence against subordinates, as well as racist, sexist, humiliating, insulting, and mocking remarks regarding the physical appearance of employees by the managers of Evolution Georgia LLC.
According to the Public Defender’s assessment, the correspondence contains content that could encourage and normalize discrimination in the workplace.
The Public Defender considers the facts revealed in this case (the screenshots of the correspondence) to be deeply concerning and condemns any encouragement of discrimination. The nature of the correspondence, especially the actions promoting discrimination by individuals in managerial positions, indicates that there are significant problems with the company’s discriminatory environment. Furthermore, the measures in place to protect employees from discrimination appear to be insufficient.
As a result, on November 1, the Public Defender made the following general recommendations to Evolution Georgia:
- Before signing an employment contract, candidates should be informed not only of the legal provisions related to the principle of equal treatment, but also of the available means for protecting their rights and the legal consequences in case of a violation of the principle of equality.
- Systematic training should be provided to employees on the principles of equality and the fight against discrimination, and the company should ensure timely and effective enforcement of internal organizational policies in accordance with the "Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination."
The company was given 20 days to comply with these proposals.
The Public Defender's decision highlights the inappropriate stance taken by Evolution Georgia. While the company’s management characterized the discriminatory correspondence as the “bad behavior” of individual managers and denied that the company had turned a blind eye to discrimination, the Public Defender argues that such correspondence is a direct result of a discriminatory environment within the company, compounded by inadequate measures to protect employees from discrimination.