Gender discrimination

The legislation generally serves to protect of all male and female employees. Specifically targeting the protection of women, Article 6(4) states that female employees shall not perform work which, by its very nature,  may hold specific dangers for women or alternatively, women may only perform such work with certain restrictions or measures suitable to prevent such risks. The Federal Ministry of Labor shall specify those works in a separate regulation (Article 18 no. 2).

The legislation generally serves to protect all male and female employees. Specifically targeting the protection of women, Article 6(4) states that female employees shall not perform work that, by its very nature,  may hold specific dangers for women. Alternatively, women may only perform such work with certain restrictions or measures that prevent such risks. The Federal Ministry of Labor shall specify those works in a separate regulation (Article 18 no. 2).

In 2004, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) considered a claim brought by the National Trade Union of Health Workers and ANIS (Institute of Bioethics, Human Rights, and Gender) to determine whether terminating a pregnancy in which the fetus suffers from anencephaly (absence of major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp) violates the prohibition on abortion as set forth in Brazil’s Penal Code.

In Judgment No. 2019/AL/66, the Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of an employee on the grounds of her desire to become pregnant and the period of incapacity certified by her doctor following a miscarriage was discriminatory. The employer was ordered to pay compensation. The Court found that the employer failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds such as a company reorganization or professional misconduct.

In Judgment No. P.22.0306.F, the Belgian Court of Cassation addressed the material element of the criminal offense of sexism, as established under the Law of May 22, 2014 combating sexism in public spaces.

In Judgment No. P.23.0492.N, the Belgian Court of Cassation reviewed sexist and discriminatory remarks made by a lecturer during a conference held at a Belgian university. The Court of Cassation clarified how the mental element of the offense of sexism should be established. It held that intent can be inferred from factual elements identified by the trial judge, such as the nature and context of the remarks, where these cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise.

The Human Rights Law is New York’s primary civil-rights statute. It bars discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and education on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, familial status, pregnancy-related conditions, and other protected traits. The statute also recognizes sexual harassment as unlawful sex discrimination. These provisions form the foundation of gender-equality protections throughout the state.

This article provides that a spouse who looks after the household, cares for the children, or supports the career or business of the other spouse is entitled to receive from the latter a reasonable allowance for his or her own personal use. In determining the allowance, “account must be taken of the personal resources of the receiving spouse and the need to provide conscientiously for the family, career and business.” Unofficial English translation available here.

A female employee claimed that she was discriminated against with regard to her salary at the time of her recruitment and subsequently as she became more senior in the company.  She argued that she was granted a lower salary at the beginning of her employment than male employees with equal qualifications and that she was not later granted a higher salary in the same way as male employees who received such higher salary only based on their seniority.The Court of first instance rejected the claims of the female employee.

Deborah Powell was the women’s basketball coach at Asbury University who brought numerous complaints over several years to the university’s athletic director that the men’s team was receiving preferential treatment. Later, the university placed Powell on administrative leave allegedly for her having an inappropriate relationship with a female assistant coach. Powell brought suit under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act claiming that Asbury discriminated against her based on gender, defamed her, and retaliated against her for her complaints about her team receiving inferior treatment.