The Supreme Court rejected a claim Friday by a woman who sought nullification of her dismissal from a company for refusing to accept a transfer due to the child-care needs of her 3-year-old. The decision upheld lower court rulings. Justice Toshihiro Kanatani said that although the disadvantage to the plaintiff posed by the assignment, which required her to move from central Tokyo to the suburbs, cannot be ignored, the company order remained within the realm of normally acceptable job assignments. Although supporting Friday's decision, Justice Toshifumi Motohara wrote an opinion paper noting that a tacit understanding that she would not be given a transfer assignment existed between the employer and the plaintiff when she joined the company. In the text, Motohara also said the assignment is valid only because it was a transfer within Tokyo. Businesses must be considerate when giving assignments to employees with preschool children, he said. "This ruling cannot be mistaken as a sign of approval (for businesses) to give employees transfer orders that require moving long distances if such assignments were not expected at the time of employment," he wrote. According to the court, the plaintiff shares domestic chores and child-rearing duties with her husband, who also has a career. While working in Tokyo's Meguro Ward at an office of Kenwood's technology development, she was transferred to its Hachioji office in western Tokyo in January 1988. The plaintiff, however, refused to take the assignment, claiming the 103-minute one-way commute would cause problems in getting her child to and from nursing school, it said. She was fired due to her refusal to take the assignment, it added.