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.
Law 20744, the Employment Contract Law, defines the fundamental rules of the employer–employee relationship, including its validity and the rights and obligations of the parties, for any employment contract executed within Argentine territory. The law includes sex as a covered basis for discrimination in the treatment of employees (Article 18) and in the type of employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements available and attached salaries (Article 187).
This law promotes, protects, and supports motherhood and breastfeeding for working women, up to 24 months of age, to ensure the proper care of the children. On this note, every pregnant worker shall have the right to access a maternity leave, for a period of 18 uninterrupted weeks, regardless the type of contract under which she provides a service. This leave will be extended to 24 weeks in cases of baby’s severe diseases or premature births. Mothers have the right to receive their regular salary during maternity leave.
The Organic Law of Labor, Workers, and Employees (LOT) governs labor relations in Venezuela and establishes a broad framework of worker rights, with a strong focus on gender equality and women’s protections. On sexual and reproductive rights, Articles 330 to 347 safeguard family, maternity, and paternity rights. The law protects breastfeeding practices, requires workplaces to provide lactation rooms, and grants 26 weeks of combined prenatal and postnatal leave to female workers, ensuring the health and well-being of both mother and child.
The applicant was dismissed by her employer, the respondent, because of operational requirements. The applicant was employed by the respondent from 1 November 2007 until her dismissal on 24 October 2012. The applicant claimed that she was dismissed unfairly because she was pregnant. Prior to her dismissal, the applicant delivered a letter from the Qacha’s Nek Hospital stating that she was pregnant and would be required to attend monthly clinics until she delivered her baby.
In Noorfadilla binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun & Ors [2011], the plaintiff applied to work as an untrained teacher with the Hulu Langat District Education Office. During her interview she was questioned on general knowledge, personal details, problem-solving skills, and residence, but not on pregnancy. She was accepted for the position, instructed to attend an induction meeting, and told to report for duty. At the meeting, an education officer asked whether any of the candidates were pregnant.
The plaintiff was a police officer with the Humboldt Police Department. While off duty, she ran into an ex-boyfriend against whom she had a protective order. Based on this encounter, she filed a criminal charge against him for violating the order. The chief of police commenced an internal affairs investigation into her charges, and her ex-boyfriend filed a criminal charge against her for filing a false charge. While both charges were pending, the plaintiff informed the chief of police that she was pregnant.
In Pitts-Baad v. Valvoline Instant Oil Change, the plaintiff was an assistant manager being considered for promotion, but failed to complete the required courses. While eight months pregnant, she fell at work and reported the injury on her doctor’s advice. After returning from maternity leave, she experienced a hostile environment marked by distrust and long delays in being allowed to pump breast milk. Following an incident in which she did not follow proper procedures during an oil change, her employment was terminated.
The respondent was employed by the appellant, Property Center Bienes Raíces, as the secretary of the owner, Taylan Ozdemir, for approximately four years. When the respondent was three months pregnant, she experienced a health issue threatening her pregnancy and presented a doctor’s note to her employer stating that she could not work for 10 days and had to rest at home. Four days later, she returned to her office to return a work laptop for the use of her co-worker who was filling in while she was absent. According to the co-worker’s testimony, the appellant-owner began to
