Turner v. Ibagli: Difference between revisions

From IbagliWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''''Turner v. Ibagli''''', [2004] was a landmark case in which the [[Supreme Court of Ibagli]] ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation was a form of sexual discrimination. The plaintiff, Mark Turner, alleged that he had been terminated by his employer because of his homosexuality, and that because women who were in open relationships with men were not also terminated, his termination was for a prohibited reason. The employment tribunal initially refused to hear the case on the grounds that no prohibited discrimination was alleged. The [[Crown Court]] upheld this action, but the Supreme Court narrowly decided to reverse. The decision was the catalyst for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Ibagli.
'''''Turner v. Ibagli''''', [2004] was a landmark case in which the [[Supreme Court of Ibagli]] ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation was a form of sexual discrimination. The plaintiff, Mark Turner, alleged that he had been terminated by his employer because of his homosexuality, and that because women who were known to be in relationships with men were not also terminated, his termination was for a prohibited reason. The employment tribunal initially refused to hear the case on the grounds that no prohibited discrimination was alleged. The [[Crown Court]] upheld this action, but the Supreme Court narrowly decided to reverse. The decision was the catalyst for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Ibagli.


[[Ibaglian case law]]
[[Category:Ibaglian case law]]

Latest revision as of 23:28, 17 August 2012

Turner v. Ibagli, [2004] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of Ibagli ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation was a form of sexual discrimination. The plaintiff, Mark Turner, alleged that he had been terminated by his employer because of his homosexuality, and that because women who were known to be in relationships with men were not also terminated, his termination was for a prohibited reason. The employment tribunal initially refused to hear the case on the grounds that no prohibited discrimination was alleged. The Crown Court upheld this action, but the Supreme Court narrowly decided to reverse. The decision was the catalyst for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Ibagli.