Sentences with phrase «discriminatory act occurred»

That said, recent Tribunal decisions have found that an employer will not have breached the Code for failing to investigate a complaint of workplace discrimination if no discriminatory act occurred.

Writing for the majority of five justices, Justice Alito reasoned that the prohibited discriminatory act occurred at the time that the salary decisions were made, and not at the time years later when the cumulative impacts were realized.

Not exact matches

The crux of the act is simply this: illegal wage bias (based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability) occurs «when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.»

-- For purposes of paragraph (2)(C), in determining whether a first or subsequent violation has occurred, a determination in a single action, by judgment or settlement, that the covered entity has engaged in more than one discriminatory act shall be counted as a single violation.

Recommendation: That the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to stipulate a shifting onus of proof so that once the complainant has made out a prima facie (reasonably believable / reasonable sound) case of discriminatory practice, the onus of proof shifts to the respondent to prove that discriminatory practices did not occur.

But an overview of the matter is that the original Indian Act was grossly discriminatory against women; in 1985 amendments were introduced to make the Act comply with the Charter; they eliminated discrimination on the basis of gender prospectively, however, leaving invidious distinctions in place where they were based on events occurring prior to the 1985 amendments.

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

The bill's stated purpose is «to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.»

H.R. 2831 also amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to declare that an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted; when a person becomes subject to the decision or other practice; or, when a person is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice - including each time compensation is paid.

The extinguishment principle applied by the common law and then by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)(NTA) together validate this discriminatory process by which non-Indigenous development occurs at the expense of Indigenous development.