wrongful termination

6 Sa 385/21 Employee v.

The plaintiff-appellant was an employee of Totes/Isotoner Corporation. For two weeks, she had taken breaks to lactate without her employer’s knowledge. After the defendant-employer fired her “for her failure to follow directions,” the plaintiff filed suit alleging wrongful termination on the basis of her pregnancy. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, and the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed.

Quijote, S.R.L., (the “Company”) fired the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The labor appeals court found that the firing was illegal because the law protects pregnant women. The Court ordered the company to reinstate the plaintiff to her position and pay her lost wages. The Company challenged the court order in 1993, but the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge as an unconstitutional action in 1995. Consequently, the labor appeals court ruling remained in effect.

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 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.

Labor Code of Ecuador (2005)

The plaintiff-appellant was the “head golf professional” at the Congress Lake Golf Club. Despite her formidable golfing pedigree, the club’s board of directors requested her resignation, ostensibly because of her inability to manage various golf programs. She sued the defendant for sex discrimination in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

Although the plaintiff had satisfactorily completed her firefighter-training year and had been highly recommended for advancement, she was found to have allegedly failed five final task tests and her employment was terminated shortly thereafter.

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.