North America

Two plaintiffs, A and B, sued their former employer for wrongful termination, one based on racial discrimination and the other based on gender discrimination.

Sandra Lovelace was born and registered as a Maliseet Indian but lost her rights and status as such in accordance with section 12(1)(b) of Canada’s Indian Act after she married a non-Indian in 1970. Lovelace noted that the law did not equally adversely impact Canadian Indian men who marry non-Indian women, and therefore alleged that the law is gender discriminatory in violation of articles 2, 3, 23, 26, and 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Supreme Court of Canada rulings in The Attorney-General of Canada v. Jeanette Lavell and Richard Isaac v.

Here, the plaintiff volunteered at a swap shop operated by the Town of Falmouth at its waste management facility.  The defendant was the land supervisor and gatekeeper of the facility.  The defendant often visited the shop and made sexual advances toward the plaintiff for three years, despite her requests that he leave her alone.  The town subsequently terminated the plaintiff’s volunteer services and barred her from the facility.  Id. at 572.  The plaintiff sued the defendant for sexual harassment in violation of M.G.L.A.

Plaintiff-ex-employee challenged the jury instruction given by the Superior Court, which directed the jury to find in plaintiff’s favor in a discrimination case brought pursuant to Wash. Rev.

Here, the plaintiff was issued a final protective order against the defendant. Subsequent to the issuance of this order, the plaintiff had filed a statement with the police that the defendant went to her work, called her work, and called her parents. Further, a witness observed the defendant at the plaintiff’s home, and he was seen to drive by her home on seven occasions. The defendant was convicted of violating the protective order and complied with it thereafter. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested a five-year extension to the order and the defendant requested a hearing.

In the case Mancini v. Township of Teaneck, 179 N.J. 425, 846 A.2d 596 (2004), the plaintiff, a police officer, alleged pervasive sex discrimination and sexual harassment during her employment with the Township of Teaneck Police Department. From the beginning of her service, she was subjected to a hostile work environment created by both supervisors and coworkers who believed that policing was not a job for women.

The Marriage Equality Act amended New York’s Domestic Relations Law to make civil marriage equally available to couples regardless of gender. It states that a marriage is valid whether the spouses are of the same or different gender, and bars officials from denying a marriage license based on the applicants’ gender identity.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Massey v. Dorning, 611 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (N.D. Ala. 2020), examined gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims brought by Sonya Massey, a deputy sheriff in Madison County. Massey alleged that the Sheriff’s Office fostered a culture hostile to women, where female employees faced sexual harassment, unsafe assignments, and retaliatory actions for reporting misconduct.

The plaintiff-appellants’ sons were members of their middle school basketball team who were victims of sexual harassment by their teammates. The harassment ranged from arguably innocent locker room pranks to sexual violence. The plaintiffs sued the Wayne County Board of Education, alleging that the school board was deliberately indifferent to student-on-student sexual harassment in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 each in damages.