By Keyword
Employment Discrimination
Australia
Thomson v. Orica Australia Pty Ltd, (July 30, 2002)
Federal Court of Australia
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment
Brief Summary: Applicant, Thomson, sued Orica alleging discrimination on the grounds of sex and pregnancy. Applicant, an Orica employee, took maternity leave from the company intending to return to work; she alleges, however, that the circumstances of her return were such that it amounted to a repudiation of her contract of employment and unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.
CEDAW: CEDAW mentioned in conjunction with the applicability of the SDA.
top↑
India
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (March 8, 2000)
Supreme Court of India
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment
Brief Summary: Female workers of the Corporation sought maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 which was denied because they were not "regular" employees. The court held that nothing "contained in the Act . . . entitle[d] only regular women employees to the benefit of maternity leave."
CEDAW: As India is a signatory of CEDAW, Article 11 of the Convention which governs marriage and maternity must "be read into the contract of service" between the Corporation and the women employees; "and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961."
Full Text [No Link as of Yet (LEXIS ONLY)]
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A K Chopra, (January 20, 1999)
Supreme Court of India
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment
Brief Summary: Sexual harassment case. Appellant alleged attempted sexual molestation, but because no actual molestation had occurred, appellant was dismissed. The court held that this was error and any distinction between attempted and actual molestation "rebel[led] against realism."
CEDAW: The court stated that the message of CEDAW and other international agreements was to direct state parties "to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women besides taking steps to protect the honour [sic] and dignity of women." Such international agreements must be applied when there is no inconsistency between the conventions and the "norms and the domestic law occupying the field."
top↑
Malaysia
Beatrice A/P at Fernandez v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & ORS, (March 11, 2003)
Chief Magistrate's Court at Thika
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment
Brief Summary:The applicant in this case was employed by the respondent as a flight stewardess. The collective agreement required all stewardesses to resign on becoming pregnant. The applicant refused and was ultimately terminated. Applicant commenced the action, alleging that the collective agreement discriminatory and therefore violated article 8 of the Federal Constitution. The court dismissed applicant's complaint, declaring, amongst other things, that the article 8 could not be expanded to include within its scope the collective agreement.
CEDAW:The applicant argued that CEDAW was applicable to the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. The court failed to address the applicability of CEDAW in the final judgment.
top↑
New Zealand
New Zealand Van Lines Ltd v. Proceedings Commissioner, (August 3, 1994)
High Court, Rotorua
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment
Brief Summary: Originally a sexual harassment claim, appellant objected to an order from the court requiring appellant's company prevent sexual harassment and to implement an anti-sexual harassment policy program.
CEDAW: The complaint arose under the Human Rights Commission Act 1977. CEDAW was offered by the respondent as a document relevant to the interpretation of the Act. The court held that CEDAW was irrelevant in this case as the Act predated the ratification of CEDAW.
Full Text (LEXIS ONLY)
top↑
International Court
Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, (May 15, 1997)
Court of Justice of the European Communities
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment; Other
Brief Summary: Discrimination action challenging a national law which mandated that women must be given priority over an equally qualified male candidates in official sectors where fewer women than men occupy high grade posts.
CEDAW: Several nations used CEDAW in order to support the action, specifically Article 4(1) which provdies for "special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women." The court concurred.
Full Text
Webb v. Emp Air Cargo, (July 14, 1994)
Court of Justice of the European Communities
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment; Other
Brief Summary:Applicant was hired by the defendant corporation to replace a pregnant employee during her pregnancy leave. Applicant later learned that she, herself, was also pregnant; the Corporation then terminated her employment.
CEDAW: Applicant relies on CEDAW although the court never directly addresses how the Convention ought to be read in such an action.
Full Text
EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Kingdom of Norway, (January 24, 2003)
The EFTA Court
Keywords: Discrimination-Gender/Sex, Employment; Other
Brief Summary: Case concerned a challenge to the Norwegian Universities Act 1995 which allowed academic positions to be earmarked for women. The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought infringement proceedings against Norway alleging that the Act contravened the EC Equal Treatment Directive in that it discriminated against men on the grounds of sex.
CEDAW: In answer to the proceedings, Norway claimed that the under-representation of women in higher academic positions sustained a need for affirmative action measures such as are called for under Article 4(1) of CEDAW. The court disagreed, noting that the Directive was rendered after CEDAW came into force and the affirmative action measures in CEDAW are "clearly permissive rather than mandatory. Therefore they cannot be relied on for derogations from obligation under EEA law."
top↑