Does this definition of harassment have any legal basis? Does the following definition of harassment have any legal basis? The gym’s dignity and inclusion policy states: “Harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination. It is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which includes sex, gender reassignment (or transgender status), race (which includes colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins), disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity and age. This unwanted conduct either has the purpose of, or is reasonably considered by the person on the receiving end to have the effect of violating their dignity or otherwise creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” Is this definition consistent with the legal definition of harassment, and what is the basis in law?
Almost. Under section 26 Equity Act 2010, the offence of harassment does not include discrimination based on &quot;marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity&quot;: Harassment (1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if— (a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i)violating B's dignity, or (ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. (2)A also harasses B if— (a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b). (3)A also harasses B if— (a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex, (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and (c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct. (4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a)the perception of B; (b)the other circumstances of the case; (c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. (5)The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. However... There is also the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which, at section 1 and section 2 creates the offence without a requirement to show any discrimination based on protected characteristics.
In the third of your sources (Harassment act, section 5), near the end, it says: If the defendant breaches an order under section 5 or 5A of the PHA 1997 without reasonable excuse, she/he will be guilty of a criminal offence (section 5(5) PHA 1997). The penalty that may be imposed upon breach of the new section 5A restraining order is identical to that which can be imposed under section 5. (Emphasis added) In Item 2 of the first source (darlingtons.com) it says: If a person disobeys the terms of an Order of Court which carries a penal notice, he will have breached the Injunction. As to whether such a breach constitutes contempt, will be considered on a case-by case approach according to the particular facts of the given case. The seriousness of the breach, and the question as to whether such action undermined or ‘laughed in the face of the Court Order’ so as to be contemptuous, will be determined by the Court. In item three of this same source it says: If the Court considers that the breach was intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice, the Court has power to commit a person to prison, and/or impose a fine. In short it appears that the court is expected to use judgement on a case-by-case basis. Violation of a restraining order because the person subject to the order had to provide emergency medical or fire or rescue services, or otherwise provide needed assistance in an emergency, with no improper motive, would, I should think, not lead to any penalty for contempt. US practice also expects a court to exercise judgement when sentencing for contempt.
You must comply with the law even on your own property Things like handrails and fencing of potential falls are almost always subject to local building codes. &quot;[S]ome netting&quot; is unlikely to be compliant except as a temporary measure. In addition, materially changing the functionality so that it becomes less safe, even if it complies, may expose you to liability if someone gets injured. Such as if the new handrail is replacing one which had measures to prevent someone from slipping under them. Harassment I'm unfamiliar with Swiss harassment laws but they usually require unwanted behaviour that offends, humiliates, intimidates, or creates a hostile environment and must usually be directed at a protected characteristic. Offending someone because you don't like them is fine; offending them because they are a woman is not. A neighbour raising concerns with you, your contractors, or the authorities is not harassment. Nor is exercising his legal right to bring a lawsuit. If it persists beyond what is reasonable it may cross over into stalking, but that's not harassment either.
As cited by @xuhdev, discrimination on the basis of marital status is prohibited in Colorado. And, even though age is not on the list, the couple could claim that you discriminate them based on their marital status, whether current or would-be, and whether related to their age or not. Note that the reason why you discriminate is irrelevant: whether you do it by calling on your religious freedom or without giving any reasons at all does not make any difference. Holding religious beliefs is by no means a lawful excuse for discrimination, no matter how deeply they are held.
Maybe To be a refugee (a necessary prerequisite to claiming asylum) you must meet the UN definition as incorporated in the host country’s domestic law: a person who: has a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’; ‘is outside the country of [their] nationality’; and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themselves] of the protection of that country’. It is important to note that “gender” is not one of the 5 grounds enumerated. However, while the definition is from the UN, the “the right of asylum is a right of States, not of the individual” or the UN. That is, each state decides who does and does not fall within one of the 5 categories even if their home state might not decide that way. This article discusses that “woman” (or a subset of “woman” e.g. divorced woman, transitioned woman etc.) could fit one of the categories - usually the “social group” or “religion” or “race”. It also mentions that common law jurisdictions have divergent approaches: Australian courts have adopted a ‘social perception’ approach which examines whether a group shares a common characteristic which sets it apart from society at large. In contrast, the jurisprudence in Canada, United Kingdom and USA has emphasised the ‘protected characteristics’ approach, which considers whether a group is united by an immutable characteristic or by a characteristic so ‘fundamental to human dignity that a person should not be compelled to forsake it’.
At the federal level, employment discrimination as prohibited here is at its core a tort rather than a crime. Probably the most pertinent first part of the law is Subpart B, which encompasses procedures. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) may receive allegations of a violation, and there is a procedure for deciding on the merits of the case. After charges are filed, there is an investigation by the EEOC, which may include a public hearing. Based on the investigation, the commission may dismiss the charge (technical flaws in the complaint); they may issue a letter of determination to that effect if they find that there was no reasonable cause for the complaint. They can also encourage a negotiated settlement. In making this determination, the commission follows its own guidelines, as encoded in the regulations. So if the commission determines by its rules that there was a violation, the courts will generally defer to that finding unless the finding is contrary to what Congress said. If there is no dismissal or settlement, then they issue a determination that there is reasonable cause (§1601.21). Then there is a procedure to rectify unlawful practices, which includes the possibility of a conciliation agreement. Finally, starting at §1601.27, we get to the point that somebody might get their day in court. If the accused still refuses to relent on whatever point was at stake, the matter can go to trial: The Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent named in a charge not a government, governmental agency or political subdivision, after thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of a charge with the Commission unless a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission has been secured But also, the aggrieved can take the accused to court at any time. The allegation then must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
In general, in the US, employers have very wide latitude in how they decide whether or not to hire someone. There are specific factors like race, sex, national origin, disability status, etc, on which they cannot discriminate, but otherwise they can do as they please. It would be perfectly legal for a company to decline to hire you because you had previously sued them.
Some are, some aren't. For instance, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits all employment discrimination on the basis of race, including discrimination against whites. On the other hand, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act explicitly only protects people who are at least 40, and the Supreme Court held that it only applies to discrimination against older workers in favor of younger workers in General Dynamics v. Cline. While both laws forbid discrimination on the basis of X, the Supreme Court held that Congress clearly meant to limit ADEA to discrimination against older workers. You specifically use veteran status as an example. Veteran status is protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The point of the law is explicitly to make it easier for people to serve in uniform without messing up their career. The law specifically bans discrimination against veterans (or a couple other service-related categories) on the basis of service. It does not ban discrimination in favor of veterans. In fact, the federal government (which is supposed to be a model employer under USERRA) gives veterans a preference in hiring decisions. Congress's goal in enacting Title VII was to make race a non-factor in employment; their goal with USERRA was to encourage military service.