Law 26743 codifies the definition of gender identity and ensures its protections. Article 2 defines gender identity as an internal and individual experience which may or may not correspond to an individual's sex assigned at birth. Article 1 recognizes the right for a person to be recognized and freely develop in accordance with their gender identity, including government identification.
Law 27636 is aimed at achieving inclusion and equality of trans people in an employment context. Article 7 of the law affirms the right for trans people to work, and the right to not be discriminated against for the duration of their employment. Article 5 requires that federal government entities have at least 1% of their workforce be trans people.
Law 25674 seeks to increase the participation and leadership of women within labor unions. The law partially amends Law 23551, which codifies the regulatory regime for labor unions. Article 1 requires collective bargaining units to have a proportional number of women as delegates as there are women workers in the branch or activity.
Law 27580 ratified the International Labour Organization’s Convention 190 on violence and harassment in the labor context. Convention 190 is an international treaty adopted by the International Labour Organization in 2019 to address violence and harassment in the workplace. It defines these terms broadly, including gender-based violence and harassment, and provides a framework for countries to prevent and respond to such behaviors.
Law 11317 originally sought to protect women in the workforce and end child labor. While most of the law has been repealed and replaced with modern labor standards, a prohibition on women working certain jobs considered to be dangerous or unhealthy, remains. Said prohibition was explicitly brought forward in Article 192 of Law 20744, which itself had repealed and replaced many other provisions of Law 11317.
Law 26844 expands the protections of Law 20744 (which defines the fundamental rules of the employer–employee relationship in Argentine law) to domestic workers. By explicitly applying the regime of Law 20744 where the law is silent, domestic workers are protected from the forms of discrimination to which Law 20744 applies.
Law 20744, the Employment Contract Law, defines the fundamental rules of the employer–employee relationship, including its validity and the rights and obligations of the parties, for any employment contract executed within Argentine territory. The law includes sex as a covered basis for discrimination in the treatment of employees (Article 18) and in the type of employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements available and attached salaries (Article 187).
Articles 699 through 704 of the Civil and Commercial Code define the circumstances that lead to the termination, removal, suspension, or reinstatement of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility naturally terminates at the death of the parent or child, when the child turns 18 or is emancipated, or at the adoption of the child by a third party without prejudice (Article 699).
Does the separation of powers permit statutory removal protections for heads of multimember administrative agencies? If so, do federal courts have the authority to reinstate wrongfully discharged members of such agencies?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether “for-cause” removal protections over members of multimember administrative agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), violate the separation of powers and, even if they do, whether federal courts have the power to reinstate wrongfully removed officers. President Donald J. Trump claims that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president and, therefore, the president must be able to control officers who exercise power on his behalf through the threat of removal. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter argues that removal protections benefit the separation of powers and enable administrative agencies to function as Congress and the founders intended. This case implicates the amount of power that a president may constitutionally exert on agencies and the stability of such agencies, including, potentially, the Federal Reserve, going forward.
(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled.
(2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) through the FTC Act of 1914. Slaughter v.
When defendants claiming an intellectual disability under Atkins have multiple IQ scores, how, if at all, should courts consider the cumulative effect of the IQ scores?
Respondent Joseph Smith is challenging a death sentence for murder by claiming an intellectual disability under an Alabama state law Atkins-like framework. The first prong of the test requires claimants to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they have an intelligence quotient (“IQ”) score below 70. While Smith has had five IQ tests over 70, one of the tests includes 69 within its 95% confidence interval. Petitioner John Hamm argues that Smith’s higher IQ scores prevent Smith from meeting his burden of proof on this first prong, so Smith cannot use the intellectual disability defense to escape execution. Smith, on the other hand, argues that his scores are borderline and inconclusive, so the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Alabama state law both permit him to use additional evidence to prove his intellectual disability. This case raises questions of victims’ interests in efficient and complete justice, the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, and states’ rights to develop and enforce their own criminal code, including sentencing preferences.
Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
In Atkins v.
