Women and Justice: Keywords

The Act requires the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to make regulations requiring employers to publish information relating to the pay of their employees to show whether there are differences on account gender and the size of such differences (if they exist). Employers must publish the difference between both the mean and the median hourly pay of male and female employees, the difference between both the mean and the median bonus pay of male and female employees, the difference between both the mean and the median hourly pay of part-time male and female employees, and the percentage of male and female employees who received bonuses and benefits in kind. In addition, employers will be required to publish the reasons for any existing differences and the measures (if any) taken or proposed to be taken by the employer to eliminate or reduce such differences. The regulations will only apply to employers with 250 or more employees in the first two years after their introduction. In the third year, the requirements will also apply to employers with 150 or more employees. Thereafter, the requirements will apply to employers with 50 or more employees. The regulations will not apply to employers with fewer than 50 employees.

This law serves as Paraguay’s Labor Code, which contains provisions that prohibit any gender-based discrimination in the workplace and guarantee the equal treatment between men and women, such as Articles 47 and 128. In turn, article 130 prohibits employers to assign risky labors to pregnant women. Articles 133 and 134 provide rights for lactating women, including requiring maternity leave and lactating rooms within the company.

Esta ley contiene el Código Laboral de Paraguay, el cual fija disposiciones que prohíben cualquier discriminación basada en el género en el lugar de trabajo y garantizan la igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres, como los artículos 47 y 128. A su vez, el artículo 130 prohíbe a los empleadores asignar labores riesgosas a mujeres embarazadas. Los artículos 133 y 134 prevén derechos para las mujeres lactantes, incluido el requisito de licencia por maternidad y salas de lactancia dentro de la empresa.

The legislation shall support planning, execution, and controlling of personnel allocation on the Federal level. Personnel controlling shall ensure, inter alia, gender equality (Article 1 para. 1 no. 2). Therefore, Article 5 provides that federal service authorities shall submit to the chancellor biennially a report detailing the target quota of women holding the highest remuneration levels (para. 2). If the targeted percentage ratios are not met, the relevant federal service authority shall submit to the chancellor an additional report explaining the reasons for such non-compliance by the end of the first quarter of the following year (para. 4).

Dieses Gesetz soll die Planung, Ausführung und der Kontrolle von Personenallokation auf Bundesebene unterstützen. Personalkapazitätskontrolle soll u.a. Geschlechtergleichheit sicherstellen (Art. 1 Abs. 1 Ziff. 2). Hierfür haben die haushaltsleitenden Organe gemäß Artikel 5 dem Bundeskanzler alle zwei Jahre einen Bericht vorzulegen, der detailliert auf die Zielquoten von Frauen in der höchsten Vergütungsklasse eingeht (Abs. 2). Für den Fall, dass die angestrebten Zielanteile nicht erreicht werden, müssen die Organe dem Kanzler bis zum Ende des ersten Quartals des Folgejahres einen Zusatzbericht vorlegen, der die Gründe für das Nichterreichen der Quote angibt (Abs. 4).

Law No. 05/L-020 on Gender Equality promotes gender equality, by defining the relevant concepts, setting forth various measures to protect equal rights of genders, and specifying the institutions responsible for gender equality. The Law defines “woman” and “man” as including any person who considers oneself as such, and describes gender identity – which does not require medical intervention – as a “protected characteristic.” Direct and indirect gender discrimination are prohibited under the Law, including less favorable treatment of women for reasons of pregnancy, maternity, or sexual orientation, and gender-based violence. Harassment and sexual harassment are also forbidden, and whether a person refuses or surrenders to such behavior shall not be used as a basis for a decision affecting that person in a legal proceeding. The Law directs the Kosovo institutions to implement various general measures to achieve gender equality in Kosovo, including gender mainstreaming in all policies and legislation, gender budgeting in all areas, and ensuring recruitment and appointment are consistent with the requirement for equal representation of women and men. In areas where inequities exist, public institutions are further instructed by the Law to take temporary special measures to accelerate the realization of gender equality, including quotas, preferential treatment, hiring, and promotion. The Law in particular requires legislative, executive, and judicial bodies at all levels to adopt special measures until equal gender representation is achieved. The Law establishes an Agency for Gender Equality to support the implementation of the Law, and further mandates that all ministries and municipalities must appoint gender equality officials, and allocate sufficient resources from their budget, to implement the Law. Discrimination on bases including sex, pregnancy, or birth, is prohibited in employment matters including access to employment or training, and working conditions. In regard to education, the Law proscribes sex discrimination in access to education and scholarships, evaluation results, and attainment of degrees, and mandates the inclusion of gender equality education in school curricula at all levels. Persons who believe the principle of equal treatment has not been implemented in relation to them may initiate proceeding in accordance with the Law on Protection from Discrimination. Violations of the Law are punishable by fines of up to 700 Euros for individuals, and 900 Euros for legal entities. (Unoffocial English version available here.)

The Equal Rights Act was created “for the enforcement of the principles enshrined in article 29 of the Constitution so as to secure equality for women.” Section 2 of the Act provides that “[w]omen and men have equal rights and the same legal status in all spheres of political, economic and social life” and that [a]ll forms of discrimination against women or men on the basis of their sex or marital status are illegal.” The Act provides, among other things, that women and men be paid equally for the same work and that, in employment matters, men shall not be afforded more favorable opportunities than women.

This Virginia law prohibits employers from discriminating between employees on the basis of sex by paying less wages to employees of a certain sex than employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

The plaintiff, a female professor sued the defendant, alleging that her salary raises were less than those of comparable male professors in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. At trial, both parties’ experts provided statistical evidence based on multiple regression analyses controlled to eliminate any observed gender disparity, including rank, years of service, division, tenure status, and degrees earned. Both experts found a difference in pay between comparable men and women, but disagreed about the statistical significance of that difference. The District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to make a case for discrimination because she had not identified a specific higher-paid male professor in her department and that she had impermissibly compared herself to a male employee statistical composite rather than an actual male employee. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff had identified a specific male comparator since only two other professors were comparable in each of the five categories identified by the expert witnesses, and one of them was a male professor who received higher pay. The Second Circuit further held that it was proper for the professor to introduce