The plaintiff was employed as a social and health care assistant, but was dismissed from her job after approximately one month due to excessive sickness absence. At the time she was dismissed, the employee was pregnant and submitted a claim to her former employee requesting compensation corresponding to six months’ pay because her dismissal violated the Danish Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women.
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.
In Agreement and Judgment No. 109 (2017), the plaintiff sued for wrongful termination, claiming that she had been fired from her job as a result of her pregnancy. The plaintiff requested that her termination be revoked and that she be compensated for lost wages, both of which the court granted. The court also ruled that pregnant people cannot be fired from their jobs, even if the employer is not aware of the pregnancy, unless the pregnant person materially violates or fails to fulfill their job obligations.
The Guatemalan Penal Code criminalizes abortion for both the woman and the person performing it in most circumstances. Article 134 provides that a woman who seeks her own abortion may be sentenced to one to three years in prison, although the penalty may be reduced to six months to two years if the act is motivated by mental health issues directly related to the pregnancy.
The plaintiff was a full-time accountant for the Los Angeles Airport Marriott when she arranged to be a gestational surrogate, and was due to give birth in April of 2014. When the child was born, the plaintiff used her three work breaks to pump breast milk and send it to the child’s family. After two weeks of shipping the milk to the family, the plaintiff continued to lactate for personal health reasons and donated the milk to women’s organizations for mothers who could not breastfeed.
On appeal of a judgment of a lower court, the Labor Court ruled that the protection of women from being fired by an employer for reasons related to their pregnancy (including pregnancy-related absences/illnesses) also applies during the trial period, regardless of legislation permitting employers to fire employees during their trial period when absent for a period exceeding seven days. As a result, a pregnant employee may only be fired during the pregnancy-related protection period (i.e., from the moment the employer is notified of the pregnancy until one month following the legal pos
The applicant, Salome Jumbo, claimed she was dismissed as a result of her pregnancy. In 1999, the applicant started as a temporary nurse aid at a clinic and continued in that position until 2001. In 2001, the manager of the clinic assured the applicant that her job had become permanent. On April 4, 2001, the manager discovered that the applicant was pregnant. He immediately warned the applicant that he would not allow her to keep her job if she remained pregnant, as they wanted a permanent nurse aid.
Marquardt took eight weeks off for maternity leave and vacation. During that time, her supervisor reorganized the division in which she worked and redefined her responsibilities. He did not inform her of these changes.
The issue here was whether the employer company was guilty of discrimination in working life. Marja-Liisa Laukkanen had been working at Oy Kolmeks Ab. During her four months trial period, she got pregnant on which she informed her employer. Soon after that, she was dismissed on the grounds that she was on her trial period. Ms. Laukkanen claimed that her pregnancy was the ground for the dismissal which was against Section 8 of the Finnish Equality Act (609/1986, as amended) (the "Equality Act") on the basis of discrimination in work life. In addition, Ms.
The applicant, a translator for the Romanian Embassy, was terminated without explanation the day after officially informing the employer of her pregnancy. She argued that her dismissal was based on gender discrimination, while the employer stated that it was because of unsatisfactory results during the contractual probationary period. The Court ruled in favor of the applicant awarding LT 50,000 in pecuniary and LT 10,000 in non-pecuniary damages to be paid by the Romanian Embassy in the Republic of Lithuania.
