wrongful termination
ID
1268
Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1986, Girard et al v The Attorney General, Court of Appeal, Saint Lucia, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (1986)
The plaintiffs were two unmarried female teachers in the permanent establishment who were pregnant for the second time and were subsequently dismissed from their employment by the Teaching Service Commission. The first plaintiff was initially granted three months of maternity leave. She was only paid for one month and was told at the end of her three-month maternity leave that she should not return to work.
Gao v. Beijing Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd. (2020)
In January 2020, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court ruled that the dismissal of a transgender woman who had undergone gender-affirming surgery was unlawful and ordered her reinstatement. The transgender woman was employed as a product director since 2015 at Dangdang, an e-commerce company best known as one of the earliest and largest online book retailers in China, and was terminated for “continuous absenteeism” after taking medically advised leave for her surgery.
Lascu v. Apex Paper Box Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
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.
Mitchem v. Counts
Mitchem filed a motion for judgment against her former employer, Counts, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of the common law following her refusal to have a sexual relationship with him, as well as several instances of 13. She argued that her discharge violated Virginia’s policy “that all persons . . .
X. v. Y.
A woman informed her employer of the fact that she was pregnant. Two months later, her employer fired her due to alleged restructuring of the company. Subsequently, the appellant started proceedings before the Court to receive an indemnity. The appellant claims that she has a right of indemnity based on the right of pregnant women to be protected against redundancy or, following the right to be protected against discrimination.