Skip to main content

equal employment opportunity

Alaska Statutes § 18.80.220 Employment and Civil Rights

Alaska Stat. § 18.80.220 prohibits employment discrimination by private employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies on the basis of personal characteristics that are unrelated to job performance. Covered characteristics include race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, and parenthood.

ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz (ASchG) (Occupational Health and Safety Act)

The legislation generally serves to protect of all male and female employees. Specifically targeting the protection of women, Article 6(4) states that female employees shall not perform work which, by its very nature,  may hold specific dangers for women or alternatively, women may only perform such work with certain restrictions or measures suitable to prevent such risks. The Federal Ministry of Labor shall specify those works in a separate regulation (Article 18 no. 2).

Bundes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (B-GlBG) (Federal Equality Act)

The Federal Equality Act aims at creating equality throughout various service agreements (see Section 1) the Federal Government might have with individuals. The main body no. 1 (1. Hauptstück) focuses on the equal treatment of men and women (Section 3). Section 7(2) states that job advertisements should be written in such a way that they equally refer to both men and women and do not contain details that could lead to the conclusion that the advertisement is only for one gender.

Connecticut General Statutes § 4a-60 Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action in Public Contracts

Section 4a-60 mandates that all public contracts awarded by the state of Connecticut, its agencies, municipalities, or quasi-public entities contain nondiscrimination and affirmative action clauses. Contractors are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, religious creed, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, veteran status, or status as a victim of domestic violence.

Halagueña, et al. v. Philippine Airlines Incorporated, G.R. No. 172013 (2009)

In 2003, several female flight attendants (collectively the petitioners) employed by Philippine Airlines (the respondent), alleged that a provision in their collective bargaining agreement was discriminatory because it required women to retire at 55 years of age, while men could work until 60 years of age. Philippine Airlines Inc. claimed that because the case involved a labor dispute, the court to which the case was assigned, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894)

Belva A. Lockwood was a practicing attorney who was licensed in several states. Lockwood applied for admission to practice law in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, and was subsequently denied admission. VA. Code § 3192 (1887) indicated that attorneys licensed to practice law in other states were permitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Lockwood filed for leave to file a writ of mandamus, which would require the Court to admit her to practice law in accordance with the Virginia Code.

Israel Women’s Network v. Government

Three men were appointed to the boards of directors of Government corporations when neither board was comprised of any women members at the time of appointments. The court found each appointment unlawful under s. 18A of the Government Corporations Law (Amendment No. 6) (Appointments), which required ministers to appoint, “in so far as it is possible in the circumstances of the case, directors of the sex that is not properly represented at that time on the board of directors of the corporation.” As a result, the court set aside each of the three appointments without prejudice.

Kopenga v. Davric Maine Corp., 1999 ME 65

The plaintiff applied for a job to work as a security guard at Scarborough Downs, a race track owned by Davric. The director of security informed the plaintiff that he normally did not hire women, and instead employed her in the dispatch hour to answer telephones and complete paperwork. The plaintiff had a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and experience in security work. The plaintiff subsequently requested to work the late night security shift at the stable gate for additional hours. Her request was denied as the director did not hire women for this position.

Subscribe to equal employment opportunity