Is Being Divorced Enough for the Status of a Single Mother: The Case Reached the Grand Chamber

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that there are no grounds for reviewing the dispute in case No. 755/16704/24 regarding compensation for unused additional social leave and returned it to the Civil Cassation Court for further consideration.

The plaintiff believed she was entitled to additional social leave as a single mother

According to the case materials, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Non-Commercial Enterprise "City Institution for Providing Psychiatric Care."

In her claim, she requested the employer to pay:

• 52,246.40 UAH — compensation for unused additional social leave for child care;
• 156,739.20 UAH — average earnings for the delay in final settlement upon dismissal;
• 10,000 UAH — moral damages.

The plaintiff justified her claim by stating that she worked at the MNE from August 2021 in various positions, including as a senior accountant, and was dismissed at her own request in April 2024.

Upon dismissal, she was paid compensation only for 11 days of unused annual leave (basic and additional for irregular working hours). At the same time, she believed the employer did not take into account 40 days of additional social leave to which she was entitled as a single mother.

After dismissal, on April 17, 2024, the plaintiff applied to the employer with a request for additional compensation for unused additional social leave. The enterprise refused, citing the untimely submission of documents confirming the right to such leave — only on the last working day. The plaintiff repeatedly contacted the employer but received no response. She stated that she is divorced, raising two children alone, the father of the children does not participate in their support and is a debtor in alimony payments, therefore she considered herself a single mother and entitled to the corresponding leave.

In its response, the MNE "City Institution for Providing Psychiatric Care" opposed the claim and asked for its dismissal. The employer noted that the plaintiff did not properly confirm the status entitling her to additional social leave and also submitted the necessary documents for its arrangement late.

Reasons for referring the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

When referring the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Panel of the Civil Cassation Court proceeded from the need to resolve the issue of whether a person who considers herself a single mother has the right to compensation for unused additional social leave upon dismissal if she did not apply to the employer for such leave during employment.

The panel noted that the right to leave is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On Leaves," which provides additional leave for single mothers.

Upon dismissal, the employee must be paid compensation for all unused leaves, as provided by the Labor Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On Leaves."

The dispute arose due to different interpretations of the concept of "single mother" and the conditions for receiving such leave. The panel proceeded from the fact that the law defines a single mother as a woman raising a child without a father and does not make the right to leave dependent on the father's participation in child support.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that there are no grounds for considering the case concerning compensation for unused additional social leave and amounts related to dismissal. The court decided to return it to the panel of the Civil Cassation Court for substantive consideration.

The key point in this position was ensuring the unity of judicial practice and the limits of the Grand Chamber's intervention in cases of possible deviation from previous legal conclusions.

The court emphasized that the principle of the rule of law and legal certainty requires stability of judicial practice, and deviation from previously formulated conclusions is possible only in the presence of significant and duly justified grounds. Such grounds may include, in particular, errors in previous decisions or significant changes in social conditions or legal regulation.

The Grand Chamber stressed that it is the Supreme Court's task to ensure the unity of judicial practice, and disagreement with previous legal positions alone is not sufficient grounds for referring the case to its consideration.

The court also drew attention to the criteria of similarity of legal relations: they should be assessed primarily by the content of the disputed rights and obligations of the parties, not only by the formal coincidence of circumstances. In this case, the Grand Chamber concluded that the legal relations are not similar to the case cited by the Civil Cassation Court panel, as the factual circumstances differ significantly.

In conclusion, the Grand Chamber noted that in case No. 520/2226/19, the Administrative Cassation Court did not formulate a binding legal conclusion (ratio decidendi) that compensation for unused additional social leave can be paid only if the employee applied to the employer for such leave during employment.

The fact that the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, noting the plaintiff's failure to provide documents confirming the status of a single mother, additionally took into account that the plaintiff did not apply for such leave is, in fact, an obiter dictum, i.e., an additional justification that does not have the character of a binding legal conclusion.

Therefore, there are no grounds for considering this case by the Grand Chamber.

In view of this, the Grand Chamber concluded to return the case to the panel of the Civil Cassation Court for substantive resolution of the dispute.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.