On April 28, 2012, the State Council of China issued the Special Rules on the Labor Protection of Female Employees (the “Rules”). These Rules aim to reduce and address the difficulties encountered by women at work due to sex-based physical differences and to protect women’s health. The Rules require employers to improve the labor safety facilities and reduce health concerns.
A report by the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School, Women and Law in Southern Africa-Zambia, and the Cornell Law School International Human Rights Clinic examining the problem of sexual violence against girls in school in Zambia.
The defendant was indicted under the Stalker Regulation Law on a charge of stalking his former girlfriend by sending two rose bouquets and five letters. The defendant argued that the Stalker Regulation Law is unconstitutional because it infringes a “right to fulfill romantic feelings”. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument opining that even if a right to fulfill romantic feelings were to exist, the purpose of the Stalker Regulation Law is legitimate and its contents are reasonable.
Here, the employment judge found that the claimant was entitled to lost wages for the period between her resignation in December 2018 and the start of her new position in September 2019 on the grounds that the claimant “suffered a substantial reduction in her mental wellbeing” as a result of improper treatment and discrimination from her employer in relation to the claimant’s onset of menopause and was thereby entitled to damages emanating from injury to feelings. The claimant alleged that her store manager discriminated against her for being a woman of menopausal age.
Here, petitioner, a male employer, sought review of a final order of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, which found petitioner had created an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment based on respondent’s gender, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.030(1), which provides, “(1) [i]t is an unlawful employment practice: (B) [f]or an employer, because of an individual's . . . sex . . .
Ms. Abramova, a citizen of Belarus, is a journalist who was arrested for her activism on behalf of the “For Freedom” movement and convicted of “minor hooliganism.” She was held in a temporary detention facility for five days, where she shared a small, unheated cell with an unenclosed toilet area that lay in open view of the all-male staff. During her detention, the male prison staff directed numerous humiliating comments at Ms. Abramova, treatment that the male detainees at the facility did not receive. Upon her release, Ms.
The purpose of the Act is to set out penalties for administrative offenses. In addition, it classifies hate crimes and discrimination on the grounds of “gender, race, nationality, language, origin, social status, religion, belief, opinion, or other grounds” to be an aggravating circumstance. Article 81 dictates that the breach of rights conferred by the Republic of Lithuania Law on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men is subject to a fine of EUR 40 to EUR 560 and EUR 560 to EUR 1000 for repeat offenses.
Mrs. Z.A. contended that she had been unfairly dismissed for having refused sexual advances by the personnel manager. The Court found that Mrs. Z.A. did not have the obligation to prove that she had been the subject of sexual harassment. Her employer had the burden of proof to show that she had been dismissed fairly. The Court found that Mrs. Z.A. had been dismissed because she did not submit to her personnel manager's sexual advances, and therefore awarded her punitive damages in addition to six months pay.
Plaintiff was denied unemployment benefits by the Employment Security Board because prior to quitting her job, she did not notify her business manager that she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor. The plaintiff appealed.
