The plaintiff, a gay man, participated in a gay recreational softball league. Subsequently, he received criticism at his job as a welfare services coordinator for Clayton Country, Georgia, for his sexual orientation and participating in the league. Previously he had received positive professional evaluations.
Article 7(1) states that all citizens are equal before the law and prohibits sex-based privileges (among other factors). Article 7(2) states that the federal government and all federal states and municipalities affirm actual equality between women and men. It further stresses that measures to achieve factual equality between women and men are legal. Regarding job titles or academic titles, Article 7(3) requires that the gendered nouns in those titles reflect the gender of the respective holder are in accordance with law.
The petitioners are eleven minors and the non-governmental organization that shelters, educates, and cares for the eleven minors.
(Sentencia T-274-15 - Acción de Tutela; Expedientes acumulados: T-4.492.963; T-4.715.291; T-4.725.592; T-4.734.867)
The ACLU filed a petition representing Kentucky abortion providers challenging the constitutionality of a state law banning physicians from providing abortions through dilation and evacuation (“D and E”) method. The Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit found that the ban unconstitutionally burdened a women’s right to abortion. After the decision, Kentucky’s Attorney General moved to intervene, which the Sixth Circuit refused. The Supreme Court, however, decided that the Attorney General should have been allowed to intervene as a non-party.
The applicant was sexually assaulted by a man who was awaiting trial for the attempted rape of another woman. Despite the seriousness of the alleged crime and the fact that the man had a prior rape conviction, the police and prosecutor had recommended that the man be released pending trial. The applicant sued the Minister for damages, arguing that the police and prosecutors had negligently failed to comply with a legal duty they owed to her to take steps to prevent the man from causing her harm.
In this decision, the Constitutional Court effectively banned polygamy in Benin. The Court found that Article 143 of the Benin Persons and Family Code was unconstitutional and discriminatory against women because it allowed polygamy only for men while women were to remain monogamous. Consequently, the Court declared this provision contrary to Article 26 of the Benin Constitution, which requires gender equality.
Five notifications regarding discrimination of students by a Foundation were made to the Equality Ombudsman after the broadcast of a TV program. In the program, the students of a school owned by the Foundation were separated by gender on the school bus. The Equality Ombudsman’s investigation noted that a gender-based separation was also made in the gymnastics classes.
Quijote, S.R.L., (the “Company”) fired the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The Labor Appeals Court (the “Court”) found that the firing was illegal because the law seeks to protect pregnant women, and though the medical certificate is a guarantee for the employer, it is not a requirement. The Court ordered the company to reinstate the plaintiff to her position and pay her lost wages. The Company challenged the court order in 1993, but the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge as an unconstitutional action in 1995. Consequently, the Labor Appeals Court ruling remaine
The Court found a law that only required men, and not women, to serve as firefighters, or alternatively, required men to pay a fire service levy, was discriminatory and violated the ECHR.
Der Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass ein Gesetz, das nur Männer und nicht Frauen zum Feuerwehrdienst verpflichtete bzw. von Männern die Zahlung einer Feuerwehrgebühr verlangte, diskriminierend war und gegen die EMRK verstieß.
