North America

This isolated thesis is a relevant example of gender perspective case law, as the criteria issued by the collegiate tribunal is binding on all cases resolved by such tribunal. In addition, such criteria issued may be persuasive in similar cases arising in other federal courts. The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará,” states that violence against women is an offense against human dignity, which constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.

The plaintiff, the mother of 10-year-old girl, sued the defendant, the Tabernacle Baptist Church, alleging that her daughter had been repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted by an employee of the church.  The plaintiff alleged that the church knew or should have known that its employee had recently been convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a young girl, was currently on probation for this offense, and that a condition of his probation was that he not be involved with children.  In spite of this fact, the church hired the offending employee and entrusted him with duties that e

Mr. Jackson, a teacher and basketball coach, brought suit against the Birmingham Board of Education (“Board”), alleging that the Board retaliated against him because he had complained about sex discrimination in the high school’s athletic program. Specifically, Mr. Jackson complained to his supervisors that the girls’ basketball team was not receiving equal funding and equal access to athletic equipment and facilities. After the Board terminated Mr. Jackson’s coaching duties, he filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hospital, Inc., 814 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a female mental health technician presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

The defendant appealed a 12-year prison sentence, arguing that his sentence was excessive given that there was no evidence he used violent force or penile penetration.

The appellant waitresses had been harassed while working at Pharos Restaurant, a restaurant owned by Platy Enterprises Ltd. Multiple waitresses endured sexual harassment from the same employee. In each individual incident, the waitresses resisted the conduct and one waitress spoke to management. While the harassment stopped, the offending employee continued to behave in an “unpleasant manner.” An adjudicator for the Manitoba Human Rights Commission awarded damages to the victims of sexual harassment and found that they had been “victims of sex discrimination contrary to s.

Jessica Gonzales petitioned that her human rights had not been protected. Previously the Supreme Court had ruled that her Due Process rights had not been violated after police didn't enforce a restraining order against her ex-husband, who subsequently murdered her three children. The Commission ruled that the state had not properly protected Jessica and recommended legislative reform to better protect women and children against domestic violence.

In both cases, female employees sought accommodation from their employers to attend to their childcare responsibilities. In both cases, the employers refused the employees’ requests and forced the employees to either accept part-time work or an unpaid leave to care for their children. The human rights tribunal in Hoyt and the Federal Court in Johnstone found that the employees had been discriminated against on the basis of family status when they were denied full-time employment status.

In Jones v. MTD Consumer Group, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 1030 (2015), the plaintiff was terminated after engaging in threatening and inappropriate behavior toward a former romantic partner who worked at the same company. The coworker reported that the plaintiff made a menacing gesture toward her and her new boyfriend outside of her home, and continued to direct derogatory remarks at her in the workplace. Following his dismissal, he filed suit in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, alleging "reverse gender discrimination" and negligent retention.

In the case Joni v. Ricki, 124 Conn. App. 170 (2010), the plaintiff moved to extend a domestic violence restraining order against her ex-husband under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15, and the trial court granted the motion based on findings that she was subject to a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury.