labor law

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.

The case concerned labor rights and protection of sex workers. The plaintiff, a sex worker, sued her former employer for firing her after she became pregnant. Under articles 236 and 239 of the Colombian Labor Code, a pregnant woman is subject to special labor protection, and therefore cannot be fired without cause and without authorities’ permission. The court consisdered whether pregnant sex workers should have the same labor protection as other professions.

The law governs rights associated with labor. The law grants women the right to a 60-day paid maternity leave. In contrast, fathers receive a one-day paternity leave on the day immediately following the birth of the child. The law also provides that mothers have the right to up to 30 absences from work per year in order to care for minor children who are either sick or have suffered an accident.

This law modified articles 236, 239, 57, and 58 of the Labor Code, among other provisions to establish special labor protections for pregnant and lactating women. The law prohibits the dismissal of pregnant or lactating women without cause and without prior permission of a labor inspector. It also granted women the right to receive their regular salary during a 14-week maternity leave.

Female flight attendants employed by Philippine Airlines alleged their collective bargaining agreement was discriminatory due to unequal grooming standards and a compulsory retirement requirement at fifty-five years of age for women but sixty years of age for men. At issue was whether the claim was a labor grievance such that the Regional Trial Court would lack jurisdiction to hear the claim.

This decision unified court’s criteria regarding issues of protection of motherhood and employment rights for pregnant women. The Constitutional Court analyzed 33 cases where pregnant women were dismissed by their employers after learning of their pregnancy status. The court ruled in favor of reinforced protection of motherhood in the workplace. Such doctrine must be duly applied in all those cases in which a woman is pregnant or during her lactation period.

This decision unified the court’s criteria regarding employment rights for pregnant women and their special labor protections. The Constitutional Court analyzed three cases where pregnant women were dismissed by their employers, who were not aware of the workers’ pregnancy status at the time of dismissal. The Constitutional Court reaffirmed the importance of guaranteeing job security for pregnant workers, especially during the lactation period, as a measure to avoid discrimination against women at work.