labor law

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.

In Brittell v. Department of Correction, 247 Conn. 148 (1998), 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. After internal investigations failed to identify responsible individuals, the Department warned staff, provided support services, and offered the plaintiff a transfer, which she declined.

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

This Act consolidates the laws relating to children. It provides an overview of children’s rights, delineates the broad requirements concerning child maintenance and adoption, regulates child labor and apprenticeship, and discusses other ancillary matters concerning children generally. Part 1, Sub-Part 1 specifies several children’s rights and parental duties such as the right to parental property, education and well-being, social activity, and opinion. This Sub-Part also protects children from exploitative labor, torture, degrading treatment, and forced betrothal, dowry, or marriage.

This law serves as Paraguay’s Labor Code, which contains provisions that prohibit any gender-based discrimination in the workplace and guarantee the equal treatment between men and women, such as Articles 47 and 128. In turn, article 130 prohibits employers to assign risky labors to pregnant women. Articles 133 and 134 provide rights for lactating women, including requiring maternity leave and lactating rooms within the company.

Article 48 states that both men and women have equal civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. Articles 49 to 59 protect the family and the rights of each member of its members. In turn, article 60 states that government authorities must promote public policies to prevent any kind of violence within the family unit. Article 89 provides for special labor protections for pregnant and lactating women, who cannot be dismissed by their employers. Article 115 supports peasant woman by allowing their participation in public debates on rural matters.

In Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co., 460 Mich. 243, 596 N.W.2d 574 (1999), the Michigan Supreme Court held that under the Michigan contribution statute, Mich. Comp.

The Employment Act 1955 is Malaysia’s principal labor statute and provides the framework for regulating employment conditions as well as addressing workplace discrimination and harassment. Section 69F authorizes the Director General of Labor to inquire into and decide disputes between employees and employers relating to discriminatory practices. This provision ensures that employees have a statutory avenue to challenge unfair treatment in the workplace. Sections 81A through 81H establish procedures for preventing and addressing sexual harassment at work.

In Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hospital, Inc., 814 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a female mental health technician presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

A company fired an employee on the basis of notorious misconduct. The employee had been accused of having committed acts of workplace violence against a female coworker. The court highlighted the need to strike a balance between protecting victims of violence and protecting employees. In reconciling this tension, the court noted that the rules of evidence established in article 46 of law 19,580 and law 18,561 on sexual harassment call for the employer to have the burden of proving that there was notorious misconduct.