Lecture and Texbook notes combined: Pregnancy and Employment

5 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Women's Studies
Women's Studies 2270A/B
Amanda J Porter

Law vs JusticeDo the legal decisions that we look at contradict notions of social justice y Why do you think those judges who made those decisions came to the conclusions that they do y Justice requires lawyers to find solutions to societys problems and lawyers have a responsibility to seek justice Marlene Cano Bliss v Attorney General 1979 Bliss argues that the limitation of benefits under section 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is ya violation of section 1b of the Bill of Rights which protects against discrimination based on sex and ensures the right of the individual to equality before the lawTo qualify for unemployment insurance a worker needed to have eight or more weeks yof insurable employment in his qualifying periodS 46 sets out a disentitlement to pregnant and recently delivered mothers in light of a yseparate benefit system under s 30 of the ActThe qualifying period for maternity benefits was longer than for regular employment ybenefitsChallenged under section 46yClaimed the act violated her right and contravened the Canadian bill of rightsy Umpire Collier agreed with Bliss that Section 46 of the UI Act was unfair and contravenes Bill of yRightsUmpire Collier ruled that the Unemployment Insurance Act 1971 unintentionally discriminated yagainst pregnant womenJudge Ritchie overturns Colliers decision argues if Section 46 of the UI Act is discriminatory that is yto pregnant women not all women Therefore no infringement of sex equality under the lawyJudge Ritchie states any inequality between the sexesis not created by legislature but by ynature Brooks vs Canada Safeway Ltd 1983Safeway employees who were pregnant could not receive benefits for 17 weeks yWhether a companys accident and sickness plan which exempts pregnant women from ybenefits during a 17 week period discriminates because of sex as prohibited by the Human Rights Act of Manitoba In March of 1983 Susan Brooks laid a complaint on the grounds that Safeways yemployee benefit plan contravened s 611 if the Human Rights Act of Manitoba For Brooks the difference per week amounted to approx 50 per weekyUnemployment insurance provided 13347 weekly compared the 188 she would receive yfrom SafewayAdjudicator Taylor rejects Brooks and later Allen and Dixons complaint against SafewayyIn referring to the Bliss decision Taylor argues that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy does ynot constitute discrimination based on sexHe was of the view that the concept of family status did not matter because an unborn ychild was not familyBrooks Appeal to Manitoba Court of Queens Bench 1985Judge Simonsen agrees that the Safeway plan is discriminatory toward pregnant womeny
More Less

Related notes for Women's Studies 2270A/B

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.