gender-based discrimination

Article 6 of the Law on Equal Opportunities and Treatment between Women and Men (202/2002) - gender-based discrimination

The Collective Labor Agreement No. 95 of 10 October 2008 was established by the National Labor Council to ensure compliance with equal treatment principles at all stages of the employment relationship. Equal treatment implies the absence of discrimination based on several factors, including gender and sexual orientation. The principle of equal treatment must be complied with at every stage of the labor market, e.g., the employment relationship, the conditions for access to employment, conditions for employment, and termination of employment.

Two waitresses endured sexual harassment from the same employee while working at Pharos Restaurant, owned by Platy Enterprises, Ltd. In each individual incident, the waitresses resisted the conduct, and one waitress spoke to management. While the harassment stopped, the offending employee continued to behave in an “unpleasant manner.” An adjudicator for the Manitoba Human Rights Commission awarded damages to the victims of sexual harassment and found that they had been victims of sex discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Act.

The case concerned the complaint by a woman that, under Turkish law, she was not allowed to keep just her maiden name in official documents after getting married, whereas married men kept their surname. The Court held that this difference in treatment on grounds of sex between persons in an analogous situation had no objective and reasonable justification.

Mr. M., the manager of the stockroom in one of the warehouses of the employers left his employment. After four months of the post remaining vacant the employee, Mrs. Smith, was appointed as the manageress of the stockroom. Her duties differed slightly from Mr. M's duties. She was paid about £10 less than he was. She argued that this breached the UK’s Equal Pay Act 1970. The Court of Appeal held that that Act does not allow comparisons with former colleagues; however, the ECJ held that EU law allows such comparison, reversing that Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The National Women’s Council Act (“NWCA”) creates women’s councils to coordinate and promote the organization of “the women of Uganda in a unified body; and to engage the women in activities that are of benefit to them and the nation.”  There are village, parish/ward, subcounty/division/town, county, and district women’s councils, each of which is comprised of all of the women in the geographical region.  Each council elects a six-member leadership committee, members of which may only serve on one at a time (e.g., if a woman is on the village committee and is then elected to the p

The petitioner, along with three other transgender individuals, were charged for violating section 153(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act: “cross-dressing in public for an ‘improper purpose.’” The petitioner brought action, alleging that section 153(1)(xlvii) was too vague to be enforceable. The petitioners argued that a prohibition on cross-dressing criminalizes gender expression and identity, in violation of Article 149D of the Constitution.

“RULING WITH A GENDER PERSPECTIVE. IN ORDER TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT MUST IDENTIFY A VULNERABLE SITUATION IN CASES WHERE A FAMILY CRISIS IS EVIDENT.”

Uganda allows for customary law to govern many situations, but the Succession Act restricts their applicability in inheritance cases.  It enshrines women’s right to inherit from husbands, but also privileges men because 1) the property of a married woman who dies intestate automatically will go to her spouse, unlike a man who dies intestate; 2) the matrimonial home will go to the legal heir, the determination of which prioritizes male relatives; 3) a widow (or widows in polygamous marriages, who must share) may only inherit 15% of her husband’s estate; and 4) maintenance and occupancy

The defendant was found guilty of multiple rapes and sentenced to five and a half years of imprisonment.  He was found guilty of threatening his victims with a knife, hitting them, holding them in a stranglehold and threatening them with death.  Four of his victims were prostitutes.   The Supreme Court awarded compensation to two rape victims who had been denied such compensation by the High Court because they were prostitutes.