In Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009), the plaintiff was employed by Wal-Mart as a staff pharmacist for approximately ten years. She was later assigned to serve as a temporary pharmacy manager. During the thirteen months she held that role, she was paid at a lower rate than male pharmacists who served as pharmacy managers.
Section 7(1) of the Labour Code of Saint Lucia prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, social origin, ethnic origin, political opinion or affiliation, age, disability, serious family responsibility, pregnancy, marital status or HIV\AIDS status.
In Lascu v. Apex Paper Box Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011), the plaintiff, a longtime employee with nearly thirty years of service, was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force. She filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging gender discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
The plaintiff was employed as a waitress with Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner, and was terminated while undergoing in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). She then filed suit to recover payment of her salary, claiming the termination was invalid under the Maternity Protection Act. She argued that from the date of her IVF treatment (two days before termination of her employment) she was entitled to national legislative protections against dismissal.
The plaintiff in the original proceeding was employed as chief physician for defendant, a pension insurance institution. She was terminated pursuant to a policy requiring termination of all employees, both men and women, upon reaching the age at which they could draw a public retirement pension (in the case of plaintiff: 60 years of age). The plaintiff argued that the termination policy was discriminatory because, under the pension statute, women were able to draw a pension at an age five years younger than men; thus, requiring their termination five years earlier.
