Contract of the woman began to deliver its services in the how and trading company on 14 June 2009 with a contract of six months extendable with a trial period of two months. His salary was 728,10 euros per month with pro-rata pay commissions of 5% per installation, by establishing a monthly minimum engagement of 240 euros, that of not covered could motivate the termination of the contract, at least women always surpassed during the trial period and extras. On the date in which it was hired was pregnant 10 weeks and according to the contested judgment, there is no evidence proved that the company had knowledge of this fact, and his dismissal was connected at the same time as another colleague, also commercial and that neither exceeded the trial period. However, according to the dissenting vote – signed by Fernando Salinas, Luis Fernando de Castro, Jordi Agusti Julia, Maria Luisa Segoviano, Rosa Maria Viroles and Manuel Ramon Alarcon – although not recorded knowledge of the situation or State of pregnancy or gestation by the enterprise, it is sufficient data to configure an objective nullity of the business decision. It adds in this respect that lack of performance claimed by the company does not correspond to the commissions that the applicant obtained and which were quantitatively higher than contractually required minimum. It also emphasizes with regard to another male worker there are no data on its possible yield that could serve as a comparative element to the activity of the pregnant worker and therefore believes that this may not be an indication of lack of discrimination. Source of the news: the Supreme view from the dismissal of a pregnant woman after the trial period