Children by Choice Association Incorporated [2023] QIRC 293
A Queensland non-profit organisation has successfully applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) for an exemption to employ only women.
Read MoreKaplan v State of Victoria (No 8) [2023] FCA 1092
In Kaplan v State of Victoria (No 8) [2023] FCA 1092 (14 September 2023), the State of Victoria was found vicariously liable for a school principal’s failure to adequately respond to antisemitic bullying by students.
Read MoreBespoke Development Group Pty Ltd v Merri-bek CC [2023] VCAT 758
Victorian Tribunal refuses to strike out use of the Human Rights Charter ground in planning decision.
Read MoreAnnovazzi v State of New South Wales - Sydney Trains [2023] FedFamC2G 542
On 23 June 2023, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA) found that Sydney Trains had unlawfully discriminated against Ms Renee Annovazzi (Ms Annovazzi) by dismissing her, prohibiting her participation in the trainee drivers course and requesting a medical note regarding her disabilities.
Read MoreRaysor v DeSantis 591 US ____ (2020)
On 16 July 2020, the United States Supreme Court, without opinion, denied an application to vacate the Florida Eleventh Circuit Court’s (Eleventh Circuit) stay of a permanent injunction. The permanent injunction would have prevented Florida from enforcing a law that requires people with a felony conviction to pay all outstanding fines, fees, and restitution payments, in order to be able to vote.
Justice Sotomayor, joined in dissent by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, reproached the “Court’s inaction [as continuing] a trend of condoning disenfranchisement”.
Read MoreOng Ming Johnson v Attorney-General and other matters [2020] SGHC 63
In this case, Justice See Kee Oon of the Supreme Court of Singapore (the Court) declined to declare section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises acts of "gross indecency" – sex between consenting adult men – unconstitutional. Despite the law's origins under British colonial administration, the Court ultimately found that section 377A did not constitute an unlawful infringement on the rights of gay and bisexual men in modern day Singapore.
Read MoreThe Queen v Chaarani (Ruling 1) [2018] VSC 387 (16 July 2018)
Justice Beale of the Victorian Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to an earlier order prohibiting the wearing of a nikab by a spectator during the trial of three men accused of plotting a Christmas bombing of Federation Square in Melbourne's CBD. Ms Aisha Al Qattan, the wife of one of the accused, submitted that a prohibition against wearing the nikab while in the public gallery of the court breached Ms Al Qattan's right of religious freedom and right to participate in public life. Both rights are enshrined in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights (Charter).
Read MoreIn a recent interlocutory ruling, Justice Bell of the Supreme Court of Victoria excluded from evidence admissions obtained from an elderly Italian man who spoke limited English during a police interview conducted without an interpreter.
Read MoreIn a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that a baker could not refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.
Read MoreBritish Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v Schrenk [2017] 2 SCR 795
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the law prohibits discrimination perpetrated against an employee by any person integral to their employment context, not just someone with managerial control.
Read MoreSessions v Morales-Santana, 582 U.S Supreme Court (12 June 2017)
The US Supreme Court has held that different citizenship rules for children of unmarried mothers and fathers unlawfully infringes the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal gender protection. However, the Court determined that the less favourable test should be followed, resulting in the respondent's deportation from the United States.
Read MoreAchbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV (European Court of Justice, C-157/15, 14 March 2017) and Bougnaoui v Micropole SA (European Court of Justice, C-188/15, 14 March 2017)
The European Court of Justice has clarified European law surrounding workplace prohibitions on wearing religious symbols in customer facing roles. The Court held that workplace bans on religious dress based on legitimate and objective aims can lawfully prohibit employees wearing visible signs of their religious, political or philosophical beliefs. However, workplace policies based on subjective criteria or which disadvantage people with particular religious beliefs would constitute indirect discrimination.
Read MoreObudho v Patty Malones Bar Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 28 (9 February 2017)
The Victorian Supreme Court has found that the cancellation by Patty Malones Bar of an African music themed event on the basis of the race of prospective patrons constituted direct discrimination in breach of the Equal Opportunity Act. The Court awarded compensation to Antony Obudho for his economic and non-economic losses as the organiser of the event, despite the fact that Patty Malones had not had any direct dealings with Mr Obudho and did not have any information about his race or ethnicity.
Read MoreJ v B [2017] EWFC 4 (20 January 2017)
In a complex case, the Family Court in England has ordered that a transgender mother is not permitted to have direct contact with her five practising, ultra-orthodox Jewish children, on the basis that the benefits to the children of resuming contact would be outweighed by the harmful community reaction to the children and their family. However, the Court ordered that indirect contact four times a year be allowed.
Read MoreLee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd & Ors [2016] NICA 39
Summary
The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has upheld that a Christian-run bakery was guilty of discrimination after they refused to make a cake containing the message “Support Gay Marriage”.
Roverto Court Order of 21 June 2016 (Sacred Heart Case)
This appeal was brought in the Rovereto Court (Court) by a teacher employed by the Institute of the Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Institute) in Rovereto, located in Northern Italy.
Case of Foulon and Bouvet v France (Application No’s 9063/14 and 10410/14) (21 July 2016)
The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has delivered a judgment protecting the rights of children born as a result of international commercial surrogacy to have their relationships with their biological parents legally recognised. The Court unanimously found that refusal by French authorities to transcribe the birth certificates of children born under surrogacy agreements in India violated the children's right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The judgment resolves past uncertainty as to whether the Court's earlier decisions on surrogacy would extend to same-sex families.
Read MoreVeasey v Abbott No. 14-41127, 2016 WL 3923868 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016)
A US federal court has handed civil rights groups a crucial win ahead of this year's presidential election after ruling that Texas’ restrictive voting legislation has a discriminatory effect on Hispanic and African American voters. The 2011 law requires voters to produce one of a limited number of forms of identification and is the nation’s strictest voter photo ID law, leaving more than half a million eligible voters unable to fully participate in the democratic process. The recent ruling will require that measures are taken to allow disenfranchised voters to participate in this November’s US presidential election.
Read MoreR (on the application of The Public Law Project) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 39
In the recent decision of R v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39, the UK Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by the Lord Chancellor to limit the availability of legal aid on the basis of citizenship and continuous residence in the UK, concluding this was outside the Lord Chancellor's power.
Read MoreTrinity Western University v The Law Society of Upper Canada [2016] ONCA 518
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss an application for judicial review of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s (LSUC) decision to refuse accreditation to an evangelical Christian law school. The Court reviewed the LSUC’s decision by reference to the standard of reasonableness and held that, in making its decision, the LSUC reasonably balanced the appellants’ rights to religious freedom against its statutory objective of protecting the ‘public interest’.
Read MoreMellet v Ireland (Views adopted by the Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2324/2013)
In March 2016, the Human Rights Committee (Committee), which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), determined that Irish laws that forced a woman whose foetus had congenital heart defects (and a low chance of survival) to procure an abortion overseas contravened the ICCPR. The Committee determined that Articles 7 (privacy), 17 (cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment) and 26 (equality before the law) of the ICCPR were violated and the Irish government should pay compensation to the claimant and provide her with needed psychological treatment. The Committee also recommended that Ireland amend its laws on voluntary termination, and if necessary its constitution, to ensure compliance with the ICCPR and prevent similar violations occurring.
Read MoreGoode v Common Equity Housing Limited (Human Rights) [2016] VCAT 93
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter) requires public authorities to give proper consideration to, and act compatibly with, the human rights set out in the Charter. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) recently held that a registered housing association was subject to the Charter when providing social housing.
Read MoreR (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for Education [2016] EWHC 128 (Admin) (29 January 2016)
The UK High Court held that the enactment of same-sex marriage legislation in 2013 did not render restrictions on opposite-sex couples entering into civil partnerships incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read MoreFirst Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v Attorney General of Canada [2016] CHRT 2 (26 January 2016)
In a significant decision handed down by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it was found that the Canadian Government discriminated against First Nations children and families living on reserve and in the Yukon Territory by failing to provide them with equitable child welfare services.
Read MoreNorth Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited v Northern Territory [2015] HCA 41 (11 November 2015)
The High Court of Australia has upheld the validity of laws granting police in the Northern Territory new powers of post-arrest detention for infringement notice offences. However, it adopted an interpretation of the legislation which confines their exercise.
Read MoreInspector (Mahila) Ravina v Union of India W.P.(C) 4525/2014, 6 August 2015
In Inspector (Mahila) Ravina v Union of India, the High Court of Delhi held that the Central Reserve Police Force’s (CRPF) denial of promotion to a CRPF female inspector owing to her pregnancy violated the individual’s right to personal liberty and equality in matters of public employment under the Constitution of India (Constitution).
Read MoreBalintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015)
The US Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute to hear the plaintiffs’ claim that Ford and IBM aided and abetted crimes committed against them during South African apartheid. The decision confirmed that the presumption against extraterritoriality will only be displaced where the relevant conduct touches and concerns the US and constitutes a violation (or aiding or abetting a violation) of customary international law. In order to demonstrate that a defendant has aided or abetted a violation the plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in the conduct for that purpose.
Read MoreDjime v Kearnes (Human Rights) [2015] VCAT 941 (26 June 2015)
To be covered by the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (the Act), members of the public alleging discrimination by police need to prove that the discrimination occurred in the provision of ‘goods and services’. A recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision clarifies the definition of ‘services’ in the Act as it relates to policing.
Read MoreObergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (26 June 2015)
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v Hodges is a landmark victory that activists have been working towards for over a decade. In a 5-4 judgment the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires States of the United States to licence marriage equality.
Read MoreOliari and Others v Italy (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Applications Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21 July 2015)
The European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Italy must provide legal recognition of same-sex couples. The ruling confirmed that Italy, by denying recognition to same-sex couples, was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right to respect for privacy and family life.
Read MoreLindsay v The Queen [2015] HCA 16
A recent decision of the High Court of Australia allows the partial defence of provocation to be left to a jury in circumstances where the accused claims to have been provoked by a non-violent homosexual advance.
Read MoreEric Gitari v Non-Governmental Organisations Co-ordination Board & 4 Others [2015] eKLR (24 April 2015)
The recent decision of the Kenyan High Court in Eric Gitari v Non-Governmental Organisations Co-ordination Board & 4 Others [2015] eKLR is an important victory for the right to freedom of association, and for gay and lesbian people in Kenya. The decision is part of a broader trend of African-based LGBTIQ groups using the courts to protect human rights.
Read MoreJK, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2015] EWHC 990 (Admin) (20 April 2015)
The UK High Court of Justice has held that the right to have one's private life respected under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) does not extend to the right of a transgender woman to amend her children’s birth certificates to reflect her transition.
Read MoreP (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council & Anor [2014] UKSC 19 (19 March 2014)
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has provided criteria for judging whether the living arrangements made for a person with a disability amount to a deprivation of liberty. If so, the deprivation must be authorised by a court or by the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS) procedure in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK) (MCA) and subject to regular independent checks. In two cases heard together, the Court held that the appellants had each been deprived of their liberty.
Read MoreR (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 16
By a majority of three to two, the UK Supreme Court held that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 (UK), which limited the total amount of welfare payments a beneficiary may receive to an amount equal to the average earnings of working households, was valid despite having a discriminatory impact on women (in particular, single mothers). A different majority of three judges held that the cap breached the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but only two of those judges found that this was relevant to the question of the discrimination against the mothers and meant that the cap was invalid. The decision reveals a significant range of views on the status and interpretation of the UNCRC in the UK.
Read MoreIslam v Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2015] ACTSC 20
The ACT Supreme Court has held that the Director-General did not breach the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CM Act) and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HR Act) for failing to provide a detainee with employment. It is a question of fact and degree in each case whether detainees' human rights require corrections authorities to provide them with employment opportunities.
Read MoreDPP v Kaba [2014] VSC 52 (18 December 2014)
The Supreme Court of Victoria found that while the police did have the power to conduct a random stop and license check of Mr Kaba, the officers’ subsequent coercive questioning of him disproportionately limited his rights to privacy and freedom of movement under the Victorian Charter and was therefore unlawful.
Read MoreA, B, C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justice (European Court of Justice, C‑148/13 C‑149/13, C‑150/13, 2 December 2014)
The European Court of Justice examined Dutch authorities’ assessment of the credibility of men seeking asylum on the basis of feared persecution because of their declared homosexuality. The Court found that assessment of the credibility of a person’s claim to be homosexual should be sensitive to individual circumstances, not based on stereotypes, and consistent with fundamental human rights.
Read MoreSlattery v Manningham City Council (Human Rights) [2013] VCAT 1869 (30 October 2013)
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has declared that a local council breached a resident’s human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (‘Charter’) when it banned him from accessing its buildings. The Tribunal’s declaration was part of its orders about the appropriate remedy in a claim of discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (‘EOA’).
Read MoreKaria, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council [2014] EWHC 3105 (Admin) (30 September 2014)
The UK High Court of Justice has dismissed an application seeking judicial review of a decision made by Leicester City Council to close a Council run aged care home. In reaching this decision, Sir Stephen Silber (sitting as a High Court Judge) confirmed that when determining an alleged infringement of a Convention right the enquiry must be whether rights have been violated rather than if they will or may be violated. His Honour also confirmed that the Public Sector Equality Duty (‘PSED’), contained in the Equality Act 2010 (UK) (‘EA’), 'is not a back door by which challenges to the factual merits of the decision may be made'.
Read MoreM S v Philippines, Communication No. 30/2011, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/58/D/30/2011
A sexual harassment case was recently declared inadmissible by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The complaint concerned the use of gender stereotypes by the domestic courts in the author’s case, amounting to a breach of Articles 5 and 11 of CEDAW. Despite clear examples of gender stereotypes being considered by the domestic courts, the majority of the Committee held there was no evidence that those stereotypes had negatively impacted the domestic court's decision. The dissenting Committee Member found a breach of CEDAW had been substantiated but that the claim was inadmissible as the author had delayed in bringing the case to the Committee.
Read MoreGonzález Carreño v Spain, Comm. No. 47/2012, UN Doc. CONVENTION/C/58/D/47/2012 (2014)
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women affirmed that, in matters of child custody and visitation, the best interests of the child must be a central concern and that national authorities must take into account the existence of a context of domestic violence when making decisions. The failure of State parties to exercise due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence by a marital party will amount to a breach of the Convention. It is not sufficient for a State party to rely upon notions of formal equality in making decisions as to parental custody.
Read MoreMugenzi v France (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 52701/09, 10 July 2014)
Tanda-Muzinga v France (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 2260/10, 10 July 2014)
Senigo Longue and Others v France (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 19113/09, 10 July 2014)
In each case, the French authorities refused to issue visas for the applicants’ children. The authorities alleged that there were difficulties in establishing the children’s civil registration status as the birth certificates provided in support of the visa applications were not authentic. The applicants appealed, claiming that the difficulties they encountered in the Family Reunification Procedure constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read MoreS.A.S v France (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 43835/11, 1 July 2014)
On 1 July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held that a French law prohibiting the concealment of one's face in public places does not breach the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Whilst it was held that the prohibition impinges on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to respect for private and family life, the government was entitled to impose the prohibition on the grounds that the ban protects the rights and freedoms of others.
Read MoreChristian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Service Limited [2014] VSCA 75 (16 April 2014)
The Victorian Court of Appeal has found in favour of a group of young same-sex attracted people in their dispute with a Christian camp provider, in an important test of the religious exemptions under the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic).
Read MoreNational Legal Services Authority v Union of India, Writ Petition No 400 of 2012 with Writ Petition No 604 of 2013, Supreme Court of India (15 April 2014)
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that transgender persons have a right to be legally recognised according to their self-identified gender, including a third gender. Failure to provide such legal recognition amounts to a breach of the right to equality before the law, non-discrimination on the basis of sex and the right to life and liberty with dignity.
Read MoreNSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie [2014] HCA 11 (2 April 2014)
The High Court of Australia has held that NSW births, deaths and marriages law recognises that a person’s sex may be other than male or female, and that the NSW Registrar has the power to register someone’s sex as “non-specific”.
Read MoreR (Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 380 (1 April 2014)
The England and Wales Court of Appeal has found that exposing a prisoner who is a non-smoker to second hand smoke for seven days by forcing him to share a cell with a smoker did not amount to interference with his rights under either article 8 (the right to privacy) or article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Read MoreBakopoulos v Greek Orthodox Parish of Mildura (Human Rights) [2014] VCAT 323 (26 March 2014)
VCAT dismissed a claim of discrimination for the refusal of a parish to grant financial membership to a female congregant. The Tribunal did not address the content of the alleged discrimination because there was no area in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) that applied to the nature of her claim. The case highlights gaps in the drafting of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) that limit the scope of protection against discrimination.
Read MoreIliafi v The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Australia [2014] FCAFC 26 (19 March 2014)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Queensland undertook a restructure which abolished wards containing predominantly Samoan congregations who conducted services in the Samoan language. The members of those congregations were welcome to attend other congregations, but the services were to be conducted in English and attendees were no longer allowed to use a language other than English in public worship. The Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously held that the Church had not unlawfully discriminated against the Samoan members, contrary to section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA), because their rights to freedom of religious expression (and other human rights) were not infringed.
Read More