Fundamental Rights Section to take legal action. The lawyers representing the Municipality of Aibl in the proceedings before the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Regional Civil Court Graz) even made the comparably low amount of € 4,000.00 offered as damages conditional on the withdrawal of the complaint lodged with the Ombudsman Board. This attempt to 'redeem' a right of complaint granted by the Constitution is unique in the more than 25-year history of the Ombudsman Board. According to the Ombudsman Board, such approach, which was rightly rejected by the complainant, is simply unacceptable in a democratic state based on the rule of law and must therefore be fully rejected. The Ombudsman therefore established that the violation of Sects. 3 para. 1 subpara. 1 and 34 para 1 of the Styrian Act on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in the Public Service by the Municipality of Aibl and the claim to make an out-of-court arrangement conditional upon the withdrawal of the complaint lodged with the Ombudsman Board by Ms. L. amount to a grievance in the public administrative system. At the same time, the State government of Styria or its member being competent pursuant to the rules of procedure has been recommended to ensure that Ms. L. is awarded adequate damages without delay pursuant to Sect. 10 of the Act on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in the Public Service of the province of Styria and to ensure by supervisory action that the Act on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in the Public Service of the province of Styria is complied with by the municipalities when employing new staff. The Ombudsman Board hopes that on the basis of this recommendation heightened importance will be attached in the future to compliance with the Act on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in the Public Service of the province of Styria, in particular at municipality level, so that the objectives of this Act can actually be fully achieved. The fact that the case was broadcast in the ORF (Austrian Broadcasting Company) programme 'Equal Rights for Everyone' and the open criticism expressed by the Ombudsman Board, which evoked considerable debate in the media, should at the same time encourage all women to fight against work-related discrimination even if it is difficult for individual persons to publicly resist staffing decisions of local government. Although legislation does not provide any obligation to recruit applicants discriminated on account of sex, the obligation to pay damages should effectively compensate them for any discrimination suffered in this respect. 76