burden of proof

Employee v. Employer; Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof); decision dated May 26, 2014– 8 ObA 55/13s

According to the court's decision, the employer bears the burden of proof for the grounds for termination and dismissal asserted by the employer. If the employer bases termination on the possibility that the employee falsely accused her superior of sexual harassment, the employer must prove that the employee knowingly made false accusations, thus providing a valid reason for termination.

Facts of the Case

In a pending divorce case, the trial court entered an order for the parties to “refrain from molesting, harassing, besetting, intimidating and/or threatening and carrying out physical or other abuse of the other.”  The wife subsequently accused the husband of sexual molestation and violating the court’s order.  The court explained that “an allegation of sexual molestation in any form is very serious and the onus is on the wife to prove to the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband breached the Order by committing the acts of sexual molestation as alleged.”  The cour

In Davis v. Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., 2015 S.D. 34, the plaintiff was an employee of Wharf Resources. She applied for a different position within the company, but the position was ultimately offered to a male employee. The plaintiff later learned that her supervisor had made disparaging remarks about women not belonging in mining. She raised concerns about discrimination to management, and several weeks later, she was terminated for alleged disruptive and hostile behavior. She filed a gender discrimination and retaliation claim.

“EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION. WHEN EMPLOYMENT IS TERMINATED DURING AN EMPLOYEE’S PREGNANCY, THE EMPLOYER BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH TERMINATION WAS NOT DISCRIMINATORY.”

The public defender is appealing a conviction of sexual assault on behalf of his client. The appeal argues that (1) the facts alleged are imprecise and ambiguous (e.g., how is it possible to restrain someone’s arms while touching them at the same time?) and (2) the sexual contact was consensual because there was no evidence of the victim’s fighting back, she didn’t scream for help, had no injuries or physical signs of assault.

The defendant was convicted of assault, violence against women, and domestic violence.

The plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Ministry of Defense—Argentine Air Force, seeking damages for sexual harassment and workplace persecution because her supervisor made indecent proposals, threatened her employment if she did not accede to his demands, made sexually explicit comments, and impeded her advancement.  The trial court ruled against the plaintiff on the basis that (1) a psychological report indicated that she suffered from “moderate reactive development,” therefore making it impossible to determine the level of fault that corresponded to the alleged hostile co

The plaintiff and the defendant lived together and had a child. Over a period of approximately two to four years, the defendant physically abused the plaintiff. The plaintiff previously obtained an abuse prevention order against the defendant under General Laws chapter 209A. That order later expired.

The appellant was convicted of raping his minor daughter and sentenced to 18 years and three years imprisonment, for rape and incest respectively, to run concurrently. He appealed his conviction, claiming that his minor daughter was the only witness to the alleged crime, that the trial judge improperly assumed the complainant was under 18 years old, that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, that his rights to legal representation were not explained, and that the sentences were unreasonable.

The appellant was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of raping a 13-year-old girl by dragging her to a nearby farm, raping her and later threatening her with retaliation if she did not stay silent. The appellant appealed, pointing to inconsistencies in the number of times the victim testified as being raped and arguing that the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.