Mitsubishi Resin Incident-1973 (Showa 48) 65438+February 12 The Supreme Court revoked the original judgment and sent it back for retrial. The plaintiff joined Mitsubishi Resin Co., Ltd. after graduating from university. When the three-month probation period was about to expire, he was found to have concealed the fact that he had participated in the student movement in the recruitment interview, so he was told not to formally hire. The plaintiff believed that the company's refusal to hire violated Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution and Article 19 of the same law and should be declared invalid, so she filed a lawsuit in court. Controversy: Does the defendant's behavior in this case constitute discrimination because of "thought or belief"? Does the private person apply the constitutional protection of rights? On July 17, Tokyo District Court ruled: 1967 (Showa 42) that the refusal to hire in this case was an abuse of the right to dismiss. Adjudicate the plaintiff in favor. The Tokyo High Court ruled: 1968 (Showa 43) On June 12, Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Labor Standards Law all prohibited discriminatory treatment of thought and conscience. It is against public order and good customs to ask employees to declare their political thoughts and beliefs in employment interviews. Adjudicate the plaintiff in favor. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and belief and also protects everyone's equal rights before the law. In addition, Articles 22 and 29 of the Japanese Constitution also guarantee citizens to exercise their property rights.

Freedom to engage in economic activities. Enterprises have the freedom to hire, and even refusing to hire employees on the grounds of freedom of thought and belief cannot be called illegal. The refusal of employment this time is the dismissal after employment, and the dismissal on the grounds of belief violates the provisions of Article 3 of the Labor Standards Law. In addition, the freedom rights guaranteed by the Constitution are aimed at the ruling behavior of the state and local public organizations, and are not directly applicable to private relations. After the verdict: both parties reached a settlement, and the plaintiff returned to work in 1976 company.