法院对“隐婚”、“隐育”是否构成欺诈的判决不尽相同,判决“隐婚”不构成欺诈是基于婚姻状况作为个人隐私与工作无直接关联,而判决“隐育”构成欺诈则因其可能影响用人单位的经营管理和工作安排。用人单位生育保障的强制性义务源于法律对生育的社会贡献的肯定和性别平等的内在需求,不因怀孕可能影响工作而免除其义务和责任。用人单位对婚育状况的探知则可能构成就业性别歧视,或应作为举证责任倒置的依据。 The court 's decision on whether “hidden marriage” or “hidden” constitutes a fraud or not is that the judgment that “hidden marriage” does not constitute fraud is not directly related to the work on the basis of marital status as personal privacy, “Cloaking” constitutes a fraud because it may affect the employer's business management and working arrangements. The obligatory obligation of the employer for maternity protection derives from the recognition of the law's social contribution to childbearing and the inherent demand of gender equality and does not absolve its obligations and responsibilities as a result of pregnancy's possible influence on work. The detection of the status of marriage and childbearing by employers may constitute sex discrimination in employment or should be used as the basis for the inversion of the burden of proof.