Sentences with phrase «discrimination on the basis of family status in»

It was discrimination on the basis of family status in that breastfeeding stemmed from a woman's status as a parent with obligations and responsibilities with respect to the care and nourishment of her child.

Not exact matches

Article 11 (2) In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures: (a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status; (b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) To encourage the provision of necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public liIn order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures: (a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status; (b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) To encourage the provision of necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public liin dismissals on the basis of marital status; (b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) To encourage the provision of necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public liin public life

In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 («Title VI»), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 («Title IX»), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 («Section 504»), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 («ADA»), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 («The Age Act»), applicants for admission and employment, students, parents, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with Capital City Public Charter School («Capital City») are hereby notified that Capital City Public Charter School does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, political affiliation, source of income, or disability in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activitieIn accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 («Title VI»), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 («Title IX»), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 («Section 504»), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 («ADA»), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 («The Age Act»), applicants for admission and employment, students, parents, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with Capital City Public Charter School («Capital City») are hereby notified that Capital City Public Charter School does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, political affiliation, source of income, or disability in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activitiein admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activitiein, its programs and activities.

Additionally, in order to ensure that students and families feel safe on their campuses, the schools do not collect any information about the immigration statuses of students, and have enacted policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin («Commitment to Students»).

In Ontario, the Human Rights Code protects the «right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability» and also protects against discrimination based on the intersection of multiple of these grounds.

The Court concluded that in order to establish prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status, a claimant must show:

In the context of family status, the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that «the childcare obligations arising in discrimination claim [s] based on family status must be one of substance and the complainant must have tried to reconcile family obligations with work obligations»In the context of family status, the Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that «the childcare obligations arising in discrimination claim [s] based on family status must be one of substance and the complainant must have tried to reconcile family obligations with work obligations»in discrimination claim [s] based on family status must be one of substance and the complainant must have tried to reconcile family obligations with work obligations».

There are civil rights laws that limit this discretion in the case, for example, of discrimination based on race, or family status.

In finding that the applicant had not been discriminated against on the basis of sex or family status the Honourable Justice Johanne Trudel directed her attention to the four factors necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status.

Here, and without adopting all of its reasoning, I can find no error in the Board's ultimate conclusion that Ms. Flatt was breastfeeding her child out of a personal choice and that discrimination on that basis, if it was discrimination, was discrimination on the basis of family status.

Specifically, the Tribunal held that the test for discrimination was the same in all cases and expressly rejected the family status test set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Johnstone, which it viewed as creating a higher standard for family status claims than cases based on other forms of discrimination.

In light of this decision, employers should be particularly careful not to take actions that could be interpreted as discrimination based on family status, or else they may face costly awards against them.

There, in upholding a Canadian Border Services Agency worker's claim based on a work schedule that conflicted with her childcare obligations, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that to establish discrimination on a prima facie basis on the ground of family status in relation to childcare, it would be necessary for an individual to show that:

In examining the case law on family status, the Tribunal took issue with the existence of a different test for family discrimination (the Johnstone test) than the test for discrimination on the basis of other protected grounds.

Notably, in both cases, the Tribunal concluded the employee had not proven discrimination on the basis of family status.

While employees are not protected from general unfairness, where an employee believes that a negative decision was made, in whole or in part, on the basis of a «prohibited ground of discrimination» (characteristics such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, family status, criminal record, and social position), he or she may file a complaint.

But this — and potentially the test — changed in 2017: two Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions, Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. and subsequently Ananda v. Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, dealt with that issue — and flat - out rejected the notion that the test for establishing discrimination on the basis of family status differs from the test in the case of any other protected ground for several reasons, including:

The Ontario Human Rights Code protects Ontarians from illegal discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or, in some situations, the receipt of public assistance.

The CNR argued that CHRT had erred in finding that a case of family status discrimination had been made out, in finding that the CNR had not met its duty to accommodate, and in awarding extra damages based on CNR's reckless conduct.

Thus, Ms. Seeley's specific parental childcare obligations and CNR's response to her request for an extension to address possible options all resulted in prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status (Seeley at para 95).

The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter, Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such, Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind, Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust, Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind, Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests, Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States, Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur, Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs, Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment, Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among nations and peoples of the world, Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well - being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child, Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest, responsibility and character, Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States, Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2 as well as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, (3) affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self - determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self - determination, exercised in conformity with international law, Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith, Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,

The court found that the defendant's use of «no children» in its rules constituted a per se violation of the Act's prohibition on discrimination based on family status and granted summary judgment on this claim.

In Kelly v. HUD, the Sixth Circuit addressed alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act based on family status discrimination.

In Jancik v. HUD, the Seventh Circuit addressed alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act based on racial and family status discrimination.

As stated in Principles of Real Estate Management, originally published by IREM in 1947 and currently in its 17th edition: «Today, fair housing laws at all levels — federal, state and local — effectively prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, nationality, sex, religion, age, family status or mental or physical handicap.