Menstruation and the Myth of the Gender-Neutral Worker: Structural Inequality in Labor Law

Abstract

The legislative framework of labor law is generally described as gender-neutral based on universal presumptions about employment availability, work productivity, and the ability to work without interruption; in actuality, this gender-neutral framework remains contingent on the existence of the non-menstruating body. This paper analyzes the concept of menstruation as the blind spot in labor law, exploring whether the gender-neutral framework of the legal system has the ability to achieve true gender equality while turning a blind eye to the cyclical body, which has been identified to negatively impact the lives of many menstruators. Methodologically, this research takes a normative approach, incorporating feminist legal theories, principles of substantive equality, and socioeconomic and medical studies on menstruation. The results of this research prove that the concept of menstruation cannot be described or characterized by frameworks such as illness or disability, leaving the normative regulatory space for menstruators to experience structural inequality. The formal equality of labor law rules thus produces unequal effects in practice by privileging an implicit model of uninterrupted work capacity. This article concludes that the legal silence surrounding menstruation is not neutral but reinforces gendered patterns of disadvantage. Making menstruation visible within labor law is therefore not a matter of special treatment but a necessary step towards substantive equality and embodied gender justice, and a prerequisite for any future regulatory responses aimed at addressing workplace inequality.

1. Introduction

Contemporary legislation of labor law presents itself as a gender-neutral field. The regulation of labor law has a number of fundamental pillars, such as the regulation of working hours and rest periods (e.g., annual paid leave), contractual and proper performance of work, and the obligation to be available, which is an essential and distinctive element of Fordist labor law (Jakab 2022). These are fundamental rules, and their concepts are formulated in seemingly universal terms, setting out universal expectations for employees and applying equally to all employees regardless of gender or gender identity. However, this formal neutrality conceals a structural bias: the legal subject of labor law is implicitly based on a stable, predictable body that is not disturbed by cyclical physical experiences. These cyclical physical changes are characteristic of the menstruating female body and are not typical of the male body (Kovačević 2023). The assertion of labor law based on the male body was not necessarily the result of a conscious and deliberate decision, but has historical reasons. Historically, the legislation of labor law (in the following simply referred to as labor law) is fundamentally based on men (who are employed under a standard—indefinite-term, full-time—employment contract), as women’s mass participation in the labor market only began with World War I (Padrón et al. 2023). The predominantly gender-neutral approach to labor law can be summarized succinctly in the 1965 ILO declaration on the employment of women with family responsibilities, which states that the problems of female workers are generally indistinguishable from those of male workers, but that additional measures are needed due to their multiple responsibilities, particularly in relation to motherhood (Tanzer 2024). The cyclical change, i.e., the deviation from the traditional and “ideal” image of an employee, is none other than menstruation. As highlighted by James (2025), labor law has historically been constructed around an implicit model of the “ideal worker”: a continuously available, unencumbered individual whose working life is not interrupted by bodily cycles or reproductive functions. Menstruation, which is a recurring and tangible reality for a significant proportion of employees, remains largely invisible in this framework. Here it must be mentioned, agreeing with James (2025), that menstruation is not the only issue that disrupts traditional work cultures. Reproductive health has many other components, like menopause, that shall also be in the focus of the critique of existing organizational norms and cultures; however, this paper is discussing menstruation especially.

The absence of menstruation from labor law is often treated as self-evident. Menstruation is neither explicitly regulated nor systematically conceptualized as a legally relevant condition. It is typically relegated to the private sphere of the worker. Behind this lies menstrual silence. Menstrual silence refers to the silence surrounding menstruation, which is due to the taboo nature of menstruation. The stigma surrounding menstruation makes dealing with menstruation a private issue for menstruators. However, when menstruation enters social discourse, it takes on a completely different dimension and is no longer a “private health matter” (Price 2022), and thus coping with this problem is not solely the private matter of women suffering from menstruation and its other symptoms (severe pain, bleeding, malaise). Breaking the menstrual silence therefore undoubtedly strengthens gender equality (Sang et al. 2021). Thus it can be stated that the legal silence around menstruation is not neutral. Rather, it reflects a normative assumption about what constitutes the “ideal” working body—an assumption that marginalizes menstruating workers without openly discriminating against them.

In this case, the perspective of gender justice is unavoidable, raising a fundamental question: can labor law claim to be substantively egalitarian if it systematically ignores embodied differences that disproportionately affect menstruators? The meaning of the right to equality is deeply contested. However, drawing on Fredman’s theory of substantive equality, equality cannot be reduced to formal equal treatment, but instead requires the law to respond to structural disadvantage, recognize difference, and transform institutions that embed exclusion. From this perspective, the absence of menstruation from labor law is not a neutral omission, but a structural blind spot that reproduces inequality by implicitly privileging a disembodied, uninterrupted model of work. In other words, a legal framework that fails to accommodate cyclical, sex-specific experiences cannot meet the demands of substantive equality, as it leaves intact patterns of disadvantage linked to socio-biological difference. It should be noted here that, although the meaning of the right to substantive equity remains somewhat elusive, a four-dimensional principle has been proposed for its assessment: to redress disadvantage; to address stigma, stereotyping, prejudice and violence; to enhance voice and participation; and to accommodate difference and achieve structural change (Fredman 2016). We agree that Fredman’s theory on the understanding of substantive equity should also be applied to menstruation. While menstruation has received growing attention in public health, human rights, and policy-oriented debates (e.g., around the hygienic issues), as a structural challenge to labor law’s foundational concepts remains under-recognized and is largely overlooked in the legal literature on the issue. The very limited volume of the existing legal scholarship mostly focuses either on specific regulatory proposals (Solymosi-Szekeres 2025a), such as menstrual leave, or on broader questions of reproductive health (Solymosi-Szekeres 2025b), but in the future it is important to interrogate the deeper normative architecture of labor law itself.

This article addresses that gap by analyzing menstruation as a critical and more holistic lens through which the gendered assumptions of labor law become visible. It argues that the formal gender neutrality of labor law produces structural inequality by failing to accommodate embodied, cyclical experiences that do not conform to the ideal of uninterrupted work capacity. The exclusion of menstruation from legal consideration does not merely reflect regulatory oversight; it actively contributes to indirect discrimination and reinforces gendered patterns of disadvantage in the workplace.

The article identifies the implicit assumptions underlying the standard model of the worker in labor law and examines how these assumptions exclude menstruation as a legally relevant experience. After these findings, it analyzes the resulting normative vacuum and its consequences for indirect discrimination and workplace inequality. As an important discussion, it situates these findings within broader debates on formal versus substantive equality and embodied gender justice, and at the same time it shows important dogmatical spheres that shall be repositioned, like the normative structure of working time, the reasonable accommodation, or the collective bargaining. The article concludes by arguing that making menstruation visible in labor law is not a matter of special treatment, but a prerequisite for genuine gender justice.

2. Methods

Methodologically, this article adopts a normative and doctrinal approach, informed by feminist legal theory and concepts of substantive equality. Drawing on existing policy papers and academic research on menstruation and labor law, and reviewing the existing (limited) legal literature, it synthesizes doctrinal analysis with gender justice theory to demonstrate how the “gender-neutral worker” operates as a masculinized norm, following the feminist legal theory. Rather than advocating a specific regulatory model, this article seeks to reframe menstruation as a matter of structural justice within labor law.

3. Findings: Menstruation and Structural Inequality in Labor Law

3.1. The Implicit Model of the “Ideal Worker”

The male body-based approach is very narrow-minded (Padrón et al. 2023). From the employer’s perspective and in terms of production productivity, the ideal employee is always available, works overtime without complaint when asked to do so, and is prevented from working overtime only by the minimum rest period rules. They are physically predictable. Workers are not expected to drop out of the work organization for months or years at a time. During such periods, moreover, the employer is restricted by a ban on termination when reviewing the efficiency of the work organization. In addition, they require as few breaks as possible, thus disrupting the continuity of production as little as possible. The productivity of the ideal employee is therefore consistently high and uninterrupted. However, there are differences in all of the above circumstances for female employees in general. For example, in a patriarchal society, childcare and nursing are primarily the responsibility of women, so female employees cannot work overtime if it coincides with childcare. The role of women in the family also means that when a child is ill, the mother, who is an employee, must take sick leave and stay away from work. Furthermore, in countries where pregnancy induces a ban on termination of employment on the part of the employer, this also represents a significant constraint for the employer with regard to pregnant women, reducing their ability to meet the ideal of ownership. The number of breaks during work is also increased when, for example, a female employee is menstruating, as one of the consequences of menstruation is increased use of the toilet. From all these points of view, therefore, the ideal, expected employee is not one who possesses these characteristics. James’ (2025) analysis highlights that labor law regulations are often based on an implicit “ideal worker” model that ignores these life cycle and health characteristics, which can contribute to invisibility in the workplace and inadequate legal protection. It is therefore not surprising that women in any country often remain in the minority in labor-market participation, and even if they have a job, they tend to work with relatively low earnings and poor working conditions (Dang 2024). With regard to women’s roles and characteristics, the law can only respond retrospectively with special regulations for historical reasons. For example, working time allowances for breastfeeding can only be introduced as lex specialis, as can all other regulations relating to circumstances affecting women. This is also demonstrated by feminist legal theory, since feminist legal theory argues that gender-neutral labor laws often fail to address the unique challenges faced by women, including those related to menstruation. These laws can inadvertently reinforce gender inequalities by not considering the specific needs of female workers (Dang 2024; Dang and Diep 2024). As Dang (2024) highlights, “there is an important dearth in the literature regarding the exploration of theoretical frameworks that hold the potential to systematically address gender inequality issues while incorporating women’s experiences into legal narratives”.

Feminist labor researchers have also critiqued the problem of insufficient consideration of gender-specific characteristics and have made three important recommendations: (1) feminist approaches should be given priority in legal analyses, (2) social reproduction and care work should be placed within the framework of labor law, revealing that labor and social security legislation continues to be based on a masculine (rather than neutral) model of work that does not take into account, for example, the care responsibilities typically assigned to women, and (3) it must be made clear that feminist criticism is not limited to gender in terms of its purpose and impact, but can more broadly revitalize post-industrial labor law (Tanzer 2024). Based on these proposals, it is conceivable and expected that all aspects of female employees’ reproductive health, including menstruation, will be taken into account in regulations protecting employees, such as rules on rest periods, even in the form of menstrual leave or days off. On this basis, it is important to note that the current model of labor law, in the absence of specific regulations by the legislator, is tailored to a body without menstruation and without the natural difficulties arising from reproductive health (e.g., menopause).

It may be argued that the body serving as the basis for the regulation is not explicitly male, and therefore the model is not explicitly male either, but rather non-neutral. However, feminist jurisprudence states that what is non-neutral is free of female characteristics, i.e., it is a male body. Burchard argues that neutrality and impartiality in themselves represent male frameworks, as they define women in relation to men (Gulya 2024). The menstruating female body and all its characteristics thus remain hidden in the law and become invisible. According to Burchard, this also stems from the fact that the law is typically created by men who start from their own male perspective, which cannot be neutral; this is objectively impossible (Gulya 2024, p. 44). The feminist approach in this way has become a challenge for the masculine nature of law (Dang and Diep 2024).

3.2. The Medical Background to the Legal Classification of Menstruation and the Resulting Indirect Discrimination and Structural Disadvantage

First, menstruation should be briefly discussed as a natural phenomenon, a cycle of changes that the uterine lining undergoes each month in response to increases and decreases in ovarian hormones in the blood (Marieb and Hoehn 2010). This is a natural biological process. Approximately one-quarter of the world’s population is of reproductive age, and menstruates every month for three to seven days (House et al. 2016). This occurs every 3–5 weeks and has a significant impact on the condition of the menstruating person. Menstruation is therefore—at least for a certain number of years—a central and unavoidable cornerstone of life for roughly half of the world’s population. On virtually any given day, there are millions of people on Earth who are menstruating (Price 2022; Weiss-Wolf 2019). In this context, it is particularly important to emphasize that menstruation is a key component of reproductive capacity and therefore not a disease.

The onset of menstruation also requires a medical description. Menstruation is monthly bleeding from the vagina, during which, if fertilization has not occurred, the uterine lining is shed. This process has a hormonal effect on the menstruating female body. Every month, the uterus produces a mucous membrane in case the egg is fertilized. However, if the egg is not fertilized, the egg and the mucous membrane are no longer needed and are expelled from the body. The discharge of blood and mucous membrane is menstruation. The female cycle is the number of days from the start of one menstruation to the start of the next and can be divided into four phases. The average length of the cycle is around 28 days, but it can vary between 21 and 40 days (which is a very often forgotten circumstance when regulating it in policies) (King 2020). Most young women have their first menstruation between the ages of 10 and 17, which is called menarche. Over the course of a lifetime, women spend approximately 40 years, 500 cycles, or 3000 days menstruating. The average menstrual period lasts 3–7 days and usually varies in intensity from day to day. The average amount of menstrual blood is 30–70 mL. More than 80 mL of blood is considered heavy menstrual bleeding. According to the medical literature, 10–30% of women suffer from unusually heavy blood loss (Yesuf et al. 2025). These facts are important to note, as they can serve as a factual basis for the debate about the need and reasoning of regulation.

Menstruation-related symptoms (just like menopause-related symptoms) (Pinkerton 2015) cover a wide range of phenomena and are present in the lives of many women. Schoep and colleagues include severe menstrual pain (dysmenorrhea), heavy menstrual bleeding, and premenstrual mood swings in this category. Studies show that women suffering from these symptoms perform less well in many areas of life during menstruation, such as general health and physical, mental, social, and occupational functioning. In addition, these symptoms can place a significant financial burden on them, their families, and society. These financial burdens are related to the costs of medical visits, over-the-counter medications, and medical or surgical treatment. However, the costs associated with reduced productivity may be the largest cost factor. Productivity costs include the costs associated with lost paid and unpaid work time and the replacement of absent workers. Productivity costs can be divided into costs related to absence and costs related to presence. Absence refers to the total time spent away from work (or school), while presence refers to the loss of productivity while at work or school, both due to MRS. However, medical and other scientific research on both the effects of attendance and the consequences of absence and related issues are very limited (Schoep et al. 2019). Dysmenorrhea is a key issue in this. Severe menstrual pain is a chronic pelvic pain of gynecological origin that occurs during the menstrual period and is also referred to as menstrual cramps or painful menstruation. The pain can sometimes be so severe that it negatively affects a woman’s daily activities, limiting her social, professional, and private life, and is one of the most common gynecological problems (Schoep et al. 2019; László et al. 2007). Dysmenorrhea is therefore a problem that directly affects women and should be recognized as a health and human rights issue.

Severe pain does not occur in every menstruating woman, as shown by World Health Organization research examining 106 community-based studies, which found that the prevalence of severe menstrual pain is approximately 12–14% in most European countries (King 2020). At the same time, unfortunately, most of them see dysmenorrhea as a normal part of the menstrual cycle (Schoep et al. 2019). Nothing illustrates this better than the fact that more than 80 percent of women experience minor or major problems during their menstrual period, and about 40 percent of women of childbearing age report painful menstruation, with 10% of them experiencing pain so severe that it prevents them from living their daily lives normally (Armour et al. 2021; László et al. 2007). Severe menstrual pain, or dysmenorrhea, can affect up to one in five women based on this, making it a problem of social significance.

Painful menstruation can be divided into two groups. Based on pathophysiology, dysmenorrhea is classified as primary dysmenorrhea (menstrual pain without organic disease) or secondary dysmenorrhea (menstrual pain associated with underlying pelvic disease) (Bernardi et al. 2017). In the case of primary dysmenorrhea, painful menstruation is not caused by a specific disease and is related to the normal menstrual cycle (MediResource Inc. 2023). In the literature, primary dysmenorrhea is often described as painful, cramping pain in the lower abdomen. It occurs immediately before menstruation or at the onset of bleeding and lasts for 1–3 days. There are three degrees of sharp, intermittent, cramping pain: mild, if it does not affect daily activities; moderate, if it slightly affects daily activities; and severe, if it prevents daily activities. The pain may radiate to the back and thighs. In addition, the pain is often accompanied by symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bloating, fatigue, insomnia, and mood swings, which subside within three days at the latest. This pain occurs in the absence of any other noticeable macroscopic pelvic pathology (Nyitrai and Takács 2019). The most common explanation for the pathogenesis of primary dysmenorrhea is excessive prostaglandin production in the uterus (Iacovides et al. 2015). However, secondary dysmenorrhea can be caused by a number of conditions, such as endometriosis, fibroids, or hormonal imbalances. In both cases, the pain can be so severe that it makes everyday activities, such as working, impossible for days each month (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2023). Painful menstruation therefore has significant socio-political implications: around 30% of women regularly take painkillers, and 20% need to stay in bed for at least three hours in certain cases. This accounts for 11.5% of days lost from work (László et al. 2007, p. 230). Given these proven circumstances, it is justified to treat them as occupational health risks, but this is not the case due to a lack of regulation.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that menstruation is not an illness, so sick leave cannot be granted solely on the basis of menstruation, even if the employee feels unwell. Furthermore, menstruation cannot affect the requirement for reasonable accommodation, since menstruation and its symptoms, such as dysmenorrhea, do not generally fall into the category of disability (Jakab 2024), being female would then be associated with disability. However, according to Price (2022), dysmenorrhea, even if only short-term, limits a person’s ability to work. Given that it is neither a disease nor a disability, no existing legal framework of protection applies, and it is not even listed as a risk in occupational safety regulations. We can therefore conclude that there is a normative regulatory gap, a vacuum, which places people affected by menstruation at a disadvantage.

Based on the above findings, it can be stated that labor law is generally based on formally identical (gender-neutral) rules, and therefore does not involve direct discrimination. However, these regulations have a different impact on menstruating employees, as they do not respond to or compensate for the disadvantages arising from menstruation. There is formal equality, which does not allow for actual equality in terms of menstruation, since, as stated above, regulations referred to as gender-neutral enshrine structural inequality at the systemic level. However, if we were to follow feminist legal considerations, agreeing with Conaghan (2017), it could cause a broader analytical and conceptual contribution to tackle and resolve key challenges such as accepting the menstruating body and putting it as a cornerstone of the social organization of work and its regulation.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Legal Policy Implications of Menstrual Silence: International Perspectives

Colussi et al. (2023) argue that the international legal interpretation of the right to work becomes truly gender-sensitive when reproductive health—including menstruation and menopause—is also included in legal and policy frameworks as a factor affecting working conditions (following the theory of menstrual justice, reproductive justice). Their argument implies not merely a need for inclusion, but a shift in how labor law conceptualizes the worker: from an abstract, gender-neutral subject to an embodied individual whose capacity to work is shaped by cyclical and sex-specific experiences. Furthermore, it shall be more than focusing only on pregnancy, but other biological and reproductive issues, that are undoubtedly linked to gender equality, but also to right to health in paid work (Colussi et al. 2023; Solymosi-Szekeres 2025b). Read in this way, the absence of menstruation from legal reasoning is not a neutral gap, but a failure to give full effect to the right to work itself. This insight resonates strongly with Fredman’s (2016) theory of substantive equality, which requires not only equal treatment but also the recognition of difference and the transformation of institutional structures that perpetuate disadvantage. Based on this thesis, if menstruation is present in lived experience but absent from legal reasoning (which could perhaps be achieved through analogy, following the example of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and other reproductive matters that are already regulated) (Colussi et al. 2023), then regulatory silence has several harmful consequences. On the one hand, it is important to emphasize that, in the absence of adequate labor law protections addressing menstruation, the persons concerned are forced to resort to other legal institutions or informal solutions. These, however, often reduce the benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. For example, in the countries where there are no specific regulations on menstrual leave, affected women take sick leave when they are unable to work due to menstrual pain and other symptoms. In the policy of an employer in England, for example, menstrual dysfunction is listed among the reasons for sick leave, which is classified as a gynecological condition (University of Exeter n.d.). At the same time, social partners (Melican 2020) also emphasize that menstruation itself is not considered an illness, and therefore it is problematic to apply sick leave, even though this is what happens (Cele 2023). As a result, they have fewer days to recover from actual illnesses than people who do not menstruate. This misclassification not only reflects a failure of recognition in Fredman’s sense, but also has redistributive consequences, as it shifts the burden of accommodating biological difference onto workers themselves, who consequently have fewer days available for actual illness compared to those who do not menstruate. More broadly, this demonstrates that the exclusion of reproductive health from labor law does not result in neutrality, but in the systematic misrecognition of embodied difference and the reproduction of structural inequality in access to labor protections.

Furthermore, in the absence of appropriate regulations, the regular effects of menstruation may deter women from choosing certain jobs in which, due to the working conditions, they would be unable to work safely, for example, because of limited access to toilets or regularly recurring discomfort. This can result in job selection.

Silence raises other professional issues related to work, not limited to labor law. Menstruation-related psychosocial hazards are often overlooked in occupational health and safety regulations. This neglect can lead to significant physical and psychological health impacts for women, particularly in industries with demanding working conditions (Naznin and Thornthwaite 2025).

Menstrual silence also contributes to stigmatization. When menstruation enters the sphere of public discourse (through policies, activists, or research articles like this manuscript), it stops being an issue that can be treated as a purely private health matter. The management of menstruation and its associated symptoms—such as severe pain, excessive bleeding—thus shifts from being an individual responsibility, individual workload (“menstrual load” in the dogmatics of Sang et al. 2021) to a matter of collective concern. Breaking the silence surrounding menstruation is therefore a structural prerequisite for advancing gender equality. Legal and policy interventions, research, and other forms of discussion that explicitly address menstruation challenge its framing as an individualized or purely personal issue. Instead, they reposition it within the domain of public health policy, comparable to areas such as obesity prevention or mental health governance (Price 2022; Sang et al. 2021).

The findings demonstrate that the exclusion of menstruation from labor law is not merely symbolic but structurally embedded in the normative foundations of the employment relationship, which can be found in many dogmatic issues, like the understanding of dignity, or the principle of equal treatment. The findings outlined above reveal a fundamental tension at the heart of labor law’s commitment to equality. By treating all workers as formally identical legal subjects, labor law aspires to neutrality. However, neutrality (or gender neutrality) at the level of legal form does not necessarily translate into equality (true equity) of outcome. When legal norms are constructed around an implicit model of uninterrupted work capacity, they systematically disadvantage those whose embodied experiences do not conform to that model (De la Iglesia Aza and Solymosi-Szekeres 2025).

Menstruation illustrates the limits of formal equality particularly clearly. The application of uniform standards of availability, productivity, and attendance presupposes a body that is constant over time. For menstruating workers, this presupposition obscures cyclical fluctuations that may affect work performance without constituting illness or incapacity, as demonstrated by the research findings discussed above. As a result, formally equal rules generate unequal effects, placing menstruating workers at a structural disadvantage while preserving the appearance of impartiality (De la Iglesia Aza and Solymosi-Szekeres 2025).

From the perspective of gender justice, this dynamic underscores the necessity of moving beyond formal equality towards a substantive understanding of equality in labor law. Substantive equality does not require identical treatment in all circumstances but rather demands that legal norms take account of relevant differences in order to prevent systemic disadvantage (Mélypataki et al. 2025; Tóth 2024). The exclusion of menstruation from legal consideration therefore cannot be accepted. Labor law implicitly endorses a norm that privileges non-menstruating bodies. This form of implicit differentiation is more difficult to contest precisely because it is embedded in ostensibly universal standards. Non-recognition thus functions as a regulatory choice that shifts the burden of adaptation entirely onto menstruating workers. The central question is not whether menstruation should be treated as an exceptional condition, but whether labor law can accommodate embodied diversity without reducing it to pathology (which means only labor law protection in the case of pathological issues). This calls for a conceptualization of difference that is relational and structural rather than individualized. This way the problem of supporting menstruation-based policies is connected to right to health and to gender equality at the same time (Solymosi-Szekeres 2025b).

It is important to examine the international dimension of the issue. Since menstruation is not tied to nationality, legal regulation is necessary on a global scale, and indeed, menstruation is necessary and possible in any standard employment relationship. An increasingly common way of doing this is to guarantee menstrual leave. The implementation of this varies in each relevant regulation, as analyzed by Solymosi-Szekeres (2025a). This shows that in the EU, the basis for this is provided by social security, while in countries outside the EU, it is provided by labor law. An important criticism of social security-based regulation is pathologization, as mentioned above, as a circumstance to be avoided. Perhaps because of the controversial regulatory implications, King (2020) argues that the idea of regulating menstruation under labor law should be rejected. Instead of introducing menstrual leave, it would be more appropriate—also from the perspective of gender equality—to focus on working conditions affecting all employees and, more broadly, on high-quality reproductive health care. So, she votes for generality. Her position is that rather than creating gender- or sex-based policies, it is better to simply ensure that the needs of all employees (including women) are taken into account when implementing workplace interventions or employment policies. If an environment is intolerable or unsafe for a menstruating employee, it is likely to be harmful to all employees. It is the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees. They believe that if the workplace provides safe and healthy conditions for all employees, then the non-gender-specific needs of women will also be met. This statement is based on logical grounds, but based on the above findings, the opposite can also be concluded. Universal regulation does not provide adequate protection if a group of people is disadvantaged, for example, due to menstrual symptoms, so general support would not put the parties on an equal footing. Menstruation can be such a burden in a woman’s life that it requires specifically dedicated support and research. In my opinion, labor law support for menstruation is ideally more targeted than universal regulation. The points raised by King are certainly important, but this general approach would serve to reinforce differences and the resulting gender inequalities. Although general regulations that protect everyone serve to protect women’s reproductive health, general thinking does not counterbalance gender-specific burdens. For this reason, it is not possible to grasp the goal of improving general working conditions.

Similarly, several researchers see the benefits of menstrual leave as a real step forward and therefore consider its introduction to be justified (Price 2022; Sang et al. 2021). Menstrual leave can have a taboo-breaking effect, shifting the social narrative (which King also emphasizes in her criticism) from negative to positive and supportive. Education is important in this regard, as menstrual pain and menstruation in general have been treated as a hidden issue in society. Thus, its effects have not been sufficiently researched, the research results are not well known, and the situation of people living with these complaints is not well known among members of society due to the “silence” surrounding menstruation. Therefore, in my opinion, this employment policy tool can contribute to the social recognition of the functioning of the menstruating female body and its reflection in legal science. Of course, one can agree with some of King’s (2020) proposals, such as her recommendation for multifaceted development, since the creation of menstrual leave is not a unique goal. However, it is merely a means to achieve the goal of ensuring that the working conditions of female employees are adequate and that the employment legal system treats gender-specific issues in a balanced manner.

4.2. Menstruation as a Forgotten Dimension of Gender Justice—Reinterpretation Issues of Different Norms in Labor Law

Labor law traditionally operates with a disembodied conception of the legal subject. The worker appears as an abstract bearer of rights and obligations, detached from the material realities of the body. Menstruation, without a doubt, disrupts this abstraction by foregrounding the embodied nature of work and the extent to which legal norms are premised on particular bodily assumptions.

Approaching menstruation through the lens of embodied gender justice highlights the inadequacy of those legal frameworks that treat the body as legally irrelevant unless it deviates dramatically from the norm (Goldblatt and Steele 2019). Menstruation is neither exceptional nor pathological; it is a routine aspect of life for many workers. Yet its routine character is precisely what renders it invisible within legal reasoning. Menstruation needs to be put in the sphere of menstrual justice, in the broader concept of reproductive justice. This means that menstruation is such a socio-structural issue that should be understood deeper than a simple biological fact, and should be handled by regulation in cases where it is required by gender equality (Butragueño et al. 2026; Bildhauer and Karin 2025). This invisibility aligns with broader critiques in feminist legal scholarship. Gender justice, in this sense, requires a reconceptualization of the legal subject of employment law not as an idealized, stable worker, but as an embodied individual situated within social and institutional constraints. In this light, menstruation serves as an analytical lens through which the gendered foundations of labor law become visible. It exposes the limitations of gender-neutral legal frameworks and invites a reconsideration of how equality is conceptualized and operationalized within employment relations.

Above, reasonable accommodation was mentioned as a non-fitting category, at least currently. Feminist legal scholarship has long criticized the narrow construction of reasonable accommodation as a mechanism activated only by exceptional or pathological deviation from the norm. Menstruation exposes the limitations of this framework, as it represents a predictable and recurring experience that restricts work capacity without constituting illness or disability (Mary L. Karin 2023). The exclusion of menstruation from accommodation regimes therefore reflects not neutrality, but a structurally gendered understanding of normal work performance.

Menstruation, when implemented in the labor law regulation, also reshapes the regulation of working time. Working time is understood as a linear, continuous, breakless concept of time; however, menstruation is a cyclic issue. These two are colliding structurally, when trying to understand menstruation in the regular working time. The law’s failure to recognize cyclical time does not merely marginalize menstruating workers, but reinforces a gendered hierarchy of whose time is legally intelligible (Marcy L. Karin 2024).

The legal silence around menstruation breaks the principle of the right to dignity at work (Mary L. Karin 2023). The persistent treatment of menstruation as a private inconvenience rather than a workplace-relevant condition undermines the dignity of menstruating workers (De la Iglesia Aza and Solymosi-Szekeres 2025). Dignity at work cannot be reduced to freedom from overt harassment; it also requires legal recognition of physical needs whose denial forces workers to conceal pain, discomfort, or bodily functions in order to appear ‘professional’. Thus, the dignity of workers needs the implementation of menstruation, and vice versa, the legal regulation of menstruation in the labor law means also the redefinition of the right to dignity.

Finally, besides individual labor law norms, collective labor law also needs to be examined. Feminist labor law scholarship underscores the potential of collective bargaining and workplace-level norms to recognize embodied differences in a non-pathologizing and non-stigmatizing manner. By focusing on flexible work arrangements, family provisions, and non-wage issues, collective bargaining can create inclusive workplace norms that support gender equality. However, the success of these efforts depends on various contextual factors, including union density, public policies, and economic conditions. This way, locating menstruation solely within individual accommodation frameworks overlooks its collective dimension (Proctor-Thomson et al. 2021; Milner 2025). Feminist labor law scholarship suggests that collective bargaining and workplace-level norms offer underexplored avenues for recognizing natural, physical differences without pathologization or individual stigmatization.

5. Conclusions

Today, there are very few legal circumstances, rooted in human rights and fundamental principles, that are left unregulated. In this regard, it is particularly problematic that women’s reproductive health, including menstruation and its effects, is virtually absent from the scope of labor law regulations. Menstruation is identified as a significant factor contributing to workplace inequality. Physical and emotional symptoms during menstruation may seriously affect women’s working capability, not to mention other unpleasant effects, yet these issues commonly find no response in the labor laws. Therefore, from the perspective of feminist legal theory, we can say that menstruation does create structural inequality in labor law, as gender-neutral frameworks often cannot consider the specific needs of the menstruating individual. Feminist legal theory stresses the need to recognize and try to address these particular challenges if there is to be genuine gender equality in the workplace. It requires legal reforms, such as menstrual leave policies, reshaping existing dogmatics like the reasonable accommodation and the dignity of the worker, along with changes in culture, to reduce these inequalities and ensure proper care for all workers. By highlighting the regulatory gap, this research is a step toward advocating for regulation. The point of naming and making the problem visible has been accentuated since it will be the first step toward regulation. Further steps will involve continued exploration of the topic through comparative insights into models of regulation, further facets of the issue, such as the possible role of collective labor law, and intersectional effects. All this (and even more) is needed so that labor law can effectively support gender equality.