Maternity Harassment Protections in Japan

In Japan, maternity harassment (マタニティハラスメント / matahara) is addressed through a combination of the Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment (Equal Employment Opportunity Act), the Labor Standards Act, the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act, and general civil-law principles concerning employment relationships and employer duties.

The protection has two distinct dimensions:

1. Prohibition of adverse treatment because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity leave, etc.; and
2. Employer's preventive duty to prevent and appropriately respond to harassment related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related statutory rights.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) continues to identify pregnancy/childbirth-related harassment as a specific workplace-harassment category requiring employer measures.

1. Meaning of maternity harassment

Maternity harassment generally refers to workplace conduct that harms a woman's working environment because she:

• becomes pregnant;
• gives birth;
• requests or takes maternity leave;
• requests statutory measures connected with pregnancy;
• exercises the right to transfer temporarily to lighter work;
• requires medically necessary protection during pregnancy;
• takes other legally protected maternity-related measures.

It can be committed by:

• supervisors;
• managers;
• colleagues;
• HR personnel;
• senior executives; or
• the employer itself.

The conduct may take the form of:

• dismissal;
• demotion;
• reduction of pay;
• removal of managerial responsibilities;
• undesirable transfer;
• refusal to accommodate pregnancy-related work restrictions;
• pressure to resign;
• refusal to grant statutory leave;
• hostile or humiliating comments;
• treating pregnancy as a burden on the workplace;
• deliberately isolating a pregnant worker;
• reducing working opportunities because of pregnancy; or
• retaliating after the worker complains.

MHLW expressly recognizes that comments or conduct by superiors or colleagues concerning pregnancy, childbirth and related statutory leave can constitute workplace harassment where they damage the worker's employment environment.

2. Principal statutory protections

A. Equal Employment Opportunity Act — Article 9(3)

Article 9(3) is particularly important.

An employer cannot dismiss or otherwise disadvantage a female worker because of matters such as:

• pregnancy;
• childbirth;
• requesting maternity leave;
• taking maternity leave;
• requesting transfer to lighter work;
• pregnancy-related statutory protections.

The Supreme Court's interpretation in the Hiroshima Central Health Co-op case made clear that Article 9(3) is a substantive prohibition and not merely an aspirational workplace policy.

B. Protection against dismissal — Article 9(4)

Article 9(4) provides additional protection concerning dismissal during pregnancy and for a prescribed period following childbirth.

An employer seeking to dismiss a protected worker must be able to establish that the dismissal was not because of pregnancy, childbirth or the protected maternity-related circumstances, subject to the statutory exceptions.

The courts therefore examine the employer's stated reason carefully rather than accepting a formal explanation automatically.

The Ryokuyukai case is an important example involving dismissal after maternity/childcare leave.

3. Employer's duty to prevent maternity harassment

Article 11-3 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act requires employers to take necessary employment-management measures concerning problems arising from workplace conduct related to pregnancy and childbirth.

These measures include:

• establishing a consultation system;
• making employees aware of the prohibition;
• identifying appropriate response procedures;
• investigating complaints;
• taking corrective action;
• preventing recurrence;
• protecting the complainant from retaliation;
• educating managers and employees.

The MHLW specifically states that employers must establish systems for receiving and appropriately responding to consultations concerning pregnancy/childbirth-related harassment.

4. Harassment and adverse treatment are different legal issues

This distinction is important.

Example 1 — adverse treatment

A pregnant employee requests lighter work and the company removes her managerial position because she made the request.

This can constitute prohibited disadvantageous treatment under Article 9(3).

Example 2 — harassment

A manager tells the pregnant employee:

"If you cannot handle the work, you should resign."

Even if no demotion occurs, the statement and surrounding conduct may damage the employee's working environment and create a harassment claim.

Example 3 — both

A manager repeatedly humiliates a pregnant employee and subsequently removes her from important assignments.

The facts may potentially support both:

• maternity-harassment liability; and
• unlawful disadvantageous treatment.

5. Pregnancy-related transfer to lighter work

Article 65(3) of the Labor Standards Act permits a pregnant worker engaged in work that could adversely affect her pregnancy to request transfer to lighter work.

The employer cannot treat the exercise of that statutory right as a legitimate reason for punishment.

The MHLW summarizes the legal position as follows: where a worker exercises the right to transfer to lighter work, the employer generally cannot dismiss or disadvantage her because she exercised that right.

6. When can a demotion nevertheless be lawful?

The Hiroshima Central Health Co-op Supreme Court judgment is especially important.

A demotion associated with a pregnancy-related transfer is presumptively problematic, but the Supreme Court recognized limited circumstances in which such treatment may escape the prohibition.

Two particularly important situations are:

A. Genuine and informed consent

The employee must have freely consented to the adverse change, supported by objectively reasonable circumstances.

The employer therefore should explain:

• what position will be lost;
• whether salary will change;
• whether allowances will disappear;
• whether the change is temporary or permanent;
• whether promotion prospects are affected;
• what happens after maternity/childcare leave.

A mere signature or silence is not necessarily sufficient.

B. Exceptional business necessity

There may be circumstances where the employer can demonstrate a genuine operational necessity and the measure does not substantially undermine the purpose of Article 9(3).

The Supreme Court required careful examination of the employee's interests, the employer's operational necessity and the circumstances surrounding the decision.

7. Six important Japanese case laws

1. Hiroshima Central Health Co-op Case

Supreme Court, First Petty Bench, October 23, 2014

Facts

A female physical therapist was a deputy supervisor. During pregnancy, she exercised her right to transfer to lighter duties.

At the time of the transfer, the employer removed her from the deputy-supervisor position and continued not to restore the position after maternity/childcare leave.

Issue

Whether removing her supervisory position in connection with her pregnancy-related transfer violated Article 9(3).

Decision

The Supreme Court rejected the lower court's reasoning and remanded the case.

It held that a demotion occurring in connection with a pregnancy-related transfer to lighter duties is, as a general rule, prohibited disadvantageous treatment unless the employer establishes the required exceptional circumstances.

The Court particularly considered:

• the substantial loss of status;
• loss of managerial allowance;
• the absence of adequate explanation;
• whether the worker freely consented;
• the employer's operational necessity.

The remand court subsequently found the measure unlawful and awarded compensation and the relevant allowance.

Principle

Pregnancy-related statutory protection cannot ordinarily be converted into a justification for demotion.

2. Tsukui / Care-Service Office Case

Fukuoka District Court, Kokura Branch, April 19, 2016

Facts

A pregnant care worker informed her supervisor of her pregnancy and requested reduction or modification of duties.

The supervisor made statements suggesting that she should continue working without special treatment and referred to the risks associated with working while pregnant.

The employer also failed to promptly implement appropriate measures.

Decision

The court found the supervisor's conduct exceeded what could reasonably be regarded as acceptable workplace instruction.

The court also recognized the employer's obligation to establish a suitable working environment and to take appropriate health-related measures for the pregnant worker.

Principle

A manager cannot use ordinary performance-management language as a vehicle for denying legitimate pregnancy-related protection.

This case is particularly useful for distinguishing legitimate management from maternity harassment.

3. Social Welfare Corporation Ryokuyukai Case

Tokyo District Court, March 4, 2020; Tokyo High Court, March 4, 2021

Facts

A childcare worker became pregnant and subsequently took maternity and childcare leave.

The employer later terminated her employment.

The worker argued that the dismissal lacked a genuine objective justification and violated the special protection applicable to dismissal during pregnancy/after childbirth.

Decision

The court concluded that the dismissal lacked objectively reasonable grounds and was socially unacceptable.

The worker was therefore entitled to confirmation of her employment status, back wages and damages.

The case is significant because the court considered both:

• ordinary dismissal principles; and
• the special protections contained in Article 9(4) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. 

Principle

An employer cannot disguise maternity-related dismissal behind an inadequate or pretextual termination reason.

4. American Express International Case

Tokyo High Court, April 27, 2023

Facts

A female employee was a team leader and had substantial managerial responsibilities.

After pregnancy, childbirth and maternity/childcare leave, she was removed from her previous leadership position and assigned work without equivalent managerial responsibilities.

The dispute concerned whether a change can constitute disadvantageous treatment even where the immediate salary impact is not necessarily obvious.

Decision

The Tokyo High Court recognized that an employment measure may be disadvantageous even when it does not immediately reduce basic salary or allowances.

A change may be disadvantageous where it substantially reduces:

• the quality of work;
• managerial responsibility;
• career opportunities;
• professional status; or
• future career development.

The court applied the protective principles of both Article 9(3) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and Article 10 of the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act.

Principle

"No salary reduction" does not automatically mean "no disadvantage."

Career degradation can itself constitute legally significant disadvantageous treatment.

5. Medical Corporation Maternity Harassment Case

Tokyo District Court, March 15, 2023

Facts

A female dentist informed the employer of her pregnancy and subsequently required a period of absence because of pregnancy-related symptoms.

The dispute concerned the employer's treatment of her during this period and the surrounding workplace conduct.

Decision

The court partially recognized the employee's claims arising from the employer's treatment and workplace conduct.

The case demonstrates that maternity harassment disputes can involve not merely formal decisions such as dismissal or demotion, but also the conduct of managers and the manner in which pregnancy-related requests are handled.

Principle

The practical treatment of a pregnant employee by management can be legally significant even where there is no formal demotion.

6. F System Case

Tokyo District Court, July 5, 2018

Facts

After childbirth, an employee sought reduced working hours to accommodate childcare.

She was told that she would have to become a part-time employee to work reduced hours, even though reduced-hours work could apparently have been accommodated without changing her employment status.

She entered into a part-time arrangement and suffered economic and status-related disadvantages.

The employer subsequently refused maternity/childcare-related requests and terminated her employment.

Decision

The court treated the statutory protection against disadvantageous treatment under the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act as mandatory.

It found that the employee's apparent agreement could not simply be treated as genuinely voluntary where:

• the disadvantages had not been adequately explained;
• the employee had been given inaccurate information about available options; and
• the change resulted in significant disadvantages.

The court also found violations associated with the employer's treatment of pregnancy, maternity leave and dismissal.

Principle

An employer cannot circumvent maternity/childcare protections by obtaining nominal employee "consent" through inadequate or misleading information.

8. Important legal principles emerging from the cases

9. What employers in Japan should do

A compliant HR system should contain at least the following:

1. Written maternity-harassment policy

The policy should expressly prohibit:

• pregnancy discrimination;
• maternity-related harassment;
• retaliation;
• pressure to resign;
• adverse treatment for exercising statutory rights.

2. Manager training

Managers should be trained that statements such as:

• "You should resign because you're pregnant."
• "Your pregnancy is causing problems for the team."
• "If you want lighter work, you cannot remain a manager."
• "Taking maternity leave will hurt your career."

can create significant legal risk.

3. Pregnancy-related accommodation process

HR should document:

1. employee's request;
2. medical/work restrictions where relevant;
3. available alternative duties;
4. business considerations;
5. employee's preferences;
6. explanation given to the employee;
7. final decision;
8. duration of the arrangement;
9. return-to-work arrangements.

4. No automatic demotion

An employer should not have a rule such as:

"Employees who move to lighter duties automatically lose their managerial position."

The Hiroshima Supreme Court case makes this approach particularly risky.

5. Preserve career continuity

Where possible, the employer should ensure that pregnancy or maternity leave does not automatically result in:

• loss of promotion eligibility;
• removal from career tracks;
• exclusion from training;
• removal from important projects;
• permanent loss of managerial status.

The American Express decision is particularly relevant to career-related disadvantage.

10. Complaint and investigation mechanism

An effective internal process should allow the employee to complain to:

• HR;
• compliance;
• an internal harassment hotline;
• an external consultation provider; or
• another designated independent channel.

The employer should:

1. promptly acknowledge the complaint;
2. protect confidentiality;
3. prevent retaliation;
4. interview the complainant;
5. interview the alleged harasser;
6. identify witnesses;
7. preserve emails, messages and recordings;
8. determine whether the conduct occurred;
9. take corrective measures;
10. communicate the outcome appropriately; and
11. prevent recurrence.

Japanese law specifically requires employers to establish mechanisms for consultation and appropriate handling of pregnancy/childbirth-related harassment.

11. Evidence in maternity-harassment disputes

Important evidence can include:

• emails;
• LINE or other workplace messages;
• HR records;
• performance evaluations;
• attendance records;
• leave applications;
• medical certificates;
• maternity-leave documentation;
• transfer orders;
• salary records;
• organizational charts;
• job descriptions;
• meeting minutes;
• recordings of conversations;
• complaints to HR;
• witness statements.

The Hiroshima Central Health Co-op case demonstrates why the employer's explanation of the consequences of a proposed demotion and the employee's understanding of those consequences can become crucial evidence.

12. Distinction between legitimate management and maternity harassment

Not every negative employment decision involving a pregnant employee is automatically illegal.

For example, an employer may still:

• address genuine misconduct;
• enforce legitimate safety requirements;
• reorganize work for legitimate operational reasons;
• conduct legitimate performance management;
• investigate misconduct;
• make necessary staffing arrangements.

However, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the measure is genuinely based on the legitimate reason rather than pregnancy, childbirth or exercise of a protected statutory right.

The Ryokuyukai case illustrates the importance of objectively reasonable grounds for dismissal, while the Hiroshima and American Express cases illustrate the heightened scrutiny applied to pregnancy/leave-related adverse treatment.

13. Key compliance rule

The safest legal principle for Japanese employers is:

Pregnancy should not become a reason for reducing an employee's employment status, career prospects, remuneration, or workplace dignity.

Where an employment change is genuinely necessary for operational reasons, HR should be able to demonstrate:

legitimate reason → objective evidence → proper explanation → employee consultation → proportional measure → documented decision → protection against retaliation.

The Supreme Court's Hiroshima Central Health Co-op decision remains the central Japanese authority for pregnancy-related demotion, while subsequent cases such as American Express, Ryokuyukai, Tsukui, F System, and the Medical Corporation Maternity Harassment case show how the principles operate across dismissal, workplace conduct, career status and childcare-related arrangements.

Conclusion

Japan's maternity-harassment framework is therefore broader than simply prohibiting the dismissal of pregnant employees. It protects against demotion, career disadvantage, inappropriate workplace conduct, pressure to resign, refusal to accommodate statutory pregnancy protections, and retaliation, while imposing affirmative preventive and consultation duties on employers. The jurisprudence increasingly focuses on the substance and practical effect of an employment measure, rather than merely its formal label.