labor law

The defendant-appellant, the Court of Common Pleas, appealed a ruling by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) that the defendant discriminated against female secretaries with respect to compensation. The Court of Common Pleas was directed to upgrade the secretaries’ wages and to provide back pay. The defendant argued that the PHRC could not require it to increase the wages and also that it was not considered an “employer” under 43 P.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 9 - Civil Rights - Article 4 - Discrimination in Employment - § 41-1461, defines the key terms used in Arizona’s employment discrimination law, and establishes the scope of protections related to sex, disability, religion, and workplace equality.

In Judgment No. 2019/AL/66, the Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of an employee on the grounds of her desire to become pregnant and the period of incapacity certified by her doctor following a miscarriage was discriminatory. The employer was ordered to pay compensation. The Court found that the employer failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds such as a company reorganization or professional misconduct.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Law on Equal Opportunities and Treatment between Women and Men (202/2002) - vocational training 

Articles 7-9 of the Law on Equal Opportunities and Treatment between Women and Men (202/2002) - equal opportunity employment

Article 11 of the Law on Equal Opportunities and Treatment between Women and Men (202/2002) - sexual harassment

Any unwanted behavior, defined as sexual harassment or harassment, with the intent of creating an atmosphere of intimidation, hostility or discouragement at work; or to adversely impact a person’s professional promotion, remuneration, or income, of any kind, or interrupts access to vocational training and development, due to unwanted sexual behavior shall be considered discrimination based on gender in Romania.

In Assamad v. Percy Square and Diamond Foods, LLC, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of to a A former employee sued a company for a sexually hostile work environment after experiencing quid pro quo workplace sexual harassment by a coworker.

In Brittell v. Department of Correction, the plaintiff, a correction officer, alleged that the Department of Correction failed to remedy a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment and rumors about her gender identity.

Quijote, S.R.L., (the “Company”) fired the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The labor appeals court found that the firing was illegal because the law protects pregnant women. 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 remained in effect.

In Final Judgment No. 113 (2023), the plaintiff was suddenly and unexpectedly fired from her job at the Paraguayan oil company, Petropar - Petroleos Paraguayos, while pregnant. The plaintiff sued her former employer for lost wages and for her reinstatement to her prior position. The defendant argued that, because the plaintiff was hired for a fixed term, meaning her employment was contractually set to end on a specified date, and had miscarried after being fired, she was not eligible for protections under Paraguayan employment and anti-discrimination laws.