sexual orientation discrimination

The claimant alleged unlawful dismissal due to her bisexuality, arguing that her dismissal violated Saint Lucia’s Equality of Opportunity and Treatment and Occupation Act. The defendant (employer), argued that the claimant was lawfully terminated due to performance issues and thus did not discriminate based on her sexual orientation. The key issue is whether the claimant’s dismissal was motivated by discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

§ 4a-60a requires that all contracts entered into by Connecticut state agencies, municipalities, and quasi-public agencies include an express provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Contractors, subcontractors, and their agents must agree not to discriminate in hiring, promotion, compensation, or other terms and conditions of employment. In addition to prohibiting discrimination, the statute obligates contractors to take affirmative steps to ensure equal opportunity.

After a Methodist Church minister (applicant) announced to her congregation her intention to marry her same-sex partner, the Methodist Church (respondent) suspended and subsequently discontinued her role as an ordained minister in early 2010. In March 2010, the applicant referred the matter to arbitration according to the Laws and Discipline of the Church. The parties could not agree on the applicant’s procedural rights and the arbitration convener proceeded with the process as provided by the Laws and Discipline of the Church.

In the ECHR Case Drelon v. France, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled on the case of a blood donor in France who refused to answer questions about his sex life, resulting in his exclusion from donation on the grounds of a factor of ineligibility associated with homosexuality. The ECHR ruled that the collection and storage of personal data by the Établissement Français du Sang, based on speculation and lacking any proven factual basis, was a violation of the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act declares that the opportunity to obtain employment, housing, education, and the full use of public accommodations is a civil right. The Act prohibits discrimination in these areas based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, or marital status. It further provides protections against retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in related proceedings.

After the plaintiff-appellant, a theater professional who was openly homosexual, complained that a coworker had threatened him based on his sexual orientation and a union hiring hall of which the plaintiff was a member refused to provide him with work. Gilbert sued his union and a collection of various employers, alleging, among other claims, discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In Kalich v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 679 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a claim of sex discrimination or hostile work environment under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp.

The Law of 10 May 2007 prohibits discrimination based on several grounds, including sexual orientation, with the exception of gender-based discrimination, which is governed by a separate law. It provides that distinctions in treatment or positive action measures are permitted only under strict conditions and where justified by a legitimate aim.

The case concerned a referral for confirmation to the Constitutional Court of an order made by the Witwatersrand High Court. The referral sought to affirm that the following laws are unconstitutional and invalid (a) the common law offence of sodomy, and (b) the inclusion of sodomy in schedules to, inter alia, the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which prohibits sexual conduct between men in certain circumstances.