上海419论坛,上海龙凤419,爱上海 – Powered by Teri Savorn!

Tag Archive: 上海浦东油压店推荐

Mere Discrimination On Ground Of ‘Sex’ Without Sexual Undertones Not ‘Sexual Harassment’ Under POSH Act: Kerala High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesMere Discrimination On Ground Of ‘Sex’ Without Sexual Undertones Not ‘Sexual Harassment’ Under POSH Act: Kerala High Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK8 Dec 2020 1:39 AMShare This – xThe Kerala High Court has held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, does not contemplate a situation of discrimination on the basis of sex if there is no express or implied sexual advance, sexual undertone or unwelcome behaviour which has a sexual tone behind it The court observed that any form of sexual approach…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Kerala High Court has held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, does not contemplate a situation of discrimination on the basis of sex if there is no express or implied sexual advance, sexual undertone or unwelcome behaviour which has a sexual tone behind it The court observed that any form of sexual approach or behaviour that is unwelcome will come under the definition of ‘sexual harassment’ under the Act, the bench comprising Justices AM Shaffique and P. Gopinath observed while upholding a single bench judgment [ Anil Rajagopal v. State of  Kerala and Others [2017 (5) KHC 217].The division bench was answering a reference from the single bench which opined that the judgment in Anil Rajagopal requires reconsideration to the extent it construed the provisions contained in Sections 2(n) and 3(2) of the Act, 2013. The petitioner’s contention was that harassment can be meted out against an individual in different forms and only in instances where the harassment has an element of sexual advance in some form, it becomes a sexual harassment. It was contended that mere difference in sex between two individuals cannot give rise to a sexual harassment even though there might be harassment. On the other hand, the respondent contended that any form of sexual intimidation or discrimination or behaviour which tends to attract harassment only on account of difference in sex can also be characterized as sexual harassment.Referring to Section 2(n) of the Act, the bench observed:Apparently it is an inclusive definition and only a few unwelcoming acts or behaviour had been mentioned at subclauses (i) to (v). There might be other instances as well. Any such behaviour which is unwelcome could be either direct or indirect. Sub-clauses (i) to (v) are only instances of unwelcome acts or behaviour, but while interpreting a statute, we will have to derive the meaning of the word “sexual harassment” taking into account sub-clauses (i) to (v) as well. Sub-clauses (i) to (v) are all illustrations. But when an allegation of sexual harassment is made, though not coming within the parameters as specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v), the act should have something to do with a sexual advance either directly or by implication. Going by the statute, only a few unwelcome acts had been delineated under sub-clauses (i) to (v). It is possible that there might be other   unwelcome acts or behaviour which would amount to a sexual advance or demand which the woman feels to be annoyed on account of the fact that she is a woman.The court said that, in order to constitute sexual harassment, definitely there should be an attempt on the part of the wrongdoer to do some act which was unwelcome or by way of behaviour, either directly or by implication makes the victim to feel that it amounts to sexual harassment. Referring to Section 3, it said:Section 3 creates an absolute prohibition to subject a women to sexual harassment at workplace. There also, sub-section (2) of Section 3 emphasises on any act or behaviour of sexual  harassment. Clauses (i) to (v) are instances which may occur in a workplace. But still, a bare reading of sub-section (2) indicates that the circumstances mentioned in clauses (i) to (v) are not exhaustive. The words ‘among other circumstances’ clarifies the said position. Any such circumstances, if it occurs, or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment alone can be treated as sexual harassment. In other words, any act which tends to affect the women in the form of clauses (i) to (v) in Section 3(2) would amount to sexual harassment only if such eventualities occur and should be in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment. The purport of Section 3(2) is that, if any of the eventualities mentioned under clauses (i) to (v) or any other circumstances occur, it should be in relation to or connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment.The court also noted that the 2013 Act does not contemplate a situation of discrimination on the basis of sex whereas it specifically deals with sexual harassment in the workplace. Answering the reference, the bench observed:”Therefore, the very concept of sexual harassment in a workplace against a woman should start from an express or implied sexual advance, sexual undertone or unwelcome behaviour which has a sexual tone behind it without which provisions of Act 2013 will not apply. In Anil Rajagopal (supra) also, this Court had while interpreting 2013 Act had arrived at the very same finding. . In the result, we do not think that Anil Rajagopal (supra) requires any reconsideration. We would only clarify that any form of sexual approach or behaviour that is unwelcome will come under the definition of ‘sexual harassment’ and it is not confined to any of the sub clauses mentioned in Section 2(n), which of course will depend upon the materials placed on record and on a case to case basis. But it is made clear that in order to take action under the 2013 Act, the acts complained of should come within the purview of S.2(n) and Section 3 of the Act or any other form of sexual treatment or sexual behaviour on the part of the respondent.”Case: DR.PRASAD PANNIAN vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA [WP(C).No.9219 OF 2020(B)] Coram: Justices AM Shaffique and P. Gopinath Counsel: SR. ADV. S. SREEKUMAR, ADV SURYA BINOY, for petitioner,  ADV V.SAJITH KUMAR, ADV REKHA VASUDEVAN for respondents.Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

CSUB looks to extend streak vs Chicago State

first_img Share This StoryFacebookTwitteremailPrintLinkedinRedditChicago State (4-21, 0-10) vs. Cal State Bakersfield (10-14, 4-5)Icardo Center, Bakersfield, California; Thursday, 10 p.m. ESTBOTTOM LINE: Cal State Bakersfield looks for its 14th straight win in the head-to-head series over Chicago State. In its last 13 wins against the Cougars, Cal State Bakersfield has won by an average of 16 points. Chicago State’s last win in the series came on Feb. 22, 2014, a 73-68 victory. FEARLESS FRESHMEN: Chicago State’s Xavier Johnson, Rajeir Jones and Amir Gholizadeh have combined to score 41 percent of all Cougars points this season, though that trio’s production has dropped to 28 percent over the last five games.DEFENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS: The Roadrunners have given up just 67.9 points per game across nine conference games, an improvement from the 73.8 per game they gave up to non-conference competition.JUMPING FOR JOHNSON: Johnson has connected on 41.4 percent of the 116 3-pointers he’s attempted and has made 4 of 17 over his last three games. He’s also converted 87.1 percent of his free throws this season.WINLESS WHEN: The Roadrunners are 0-10 when they allow at least 73 points and 10-4 when they hold opponents to anything under 73 points. The Cougars are 0-20 when they score 74 points or fewer and 4-1 when they exceed 74.COLD SPELL: Chicago State has lost its last six road games, scoring 56.8 points, while allowing 86.8 per game.SECOND CHANCES: Cal State Bakersfield has posted an excellent offensive rebound percentage of 37.3 percent this year. That rate is the sixth-highest in Division 1. The offensive rebound percentage for Chicago State stands at just 23.3 percent (ranked 314th). Associated Press February 12, 2020center_img CSUB looks to extend streak vs Chicago State ___For more AP college basketball coverage: https://apnews.com/Collegebasketball and http://twitter.com/AP_Top25___This was generated by Automated Insights, http://www.automatedinsights.com/ap, using data from STATS LLC, https://www.stats.comlast_img read more

WBB : Orange looks to snap 9-year losing streak to Notre Dame

first_img Published on January 31, 2011 at 12:00 pm The Syracuse women’s basketball team clawed all the way back. Down 14 at halftime last season to No. 3 Notre Dame inside the Carrier Dome, the Orange stifled the Fighting Irish attack in the second period and managed to pull ahead, 72-71, with less than a minute left.In its biggest game of last season up to that point, the Orange was in position to pull out a marquee victory over the third-ranked team in the nation.But the comeback soon fell apart.Notre Dame had made just one 3-pointer the entire second half, but Ashley Barlow changed that when she knocked down the go-ahead shot from the right wing.Still, SU had time. But after the Irish missed the front end of a one-and-one, Syracuse guard Erica Morrow’s last-second shot fell short. A jump ball on the rebound gave Syracuse possession with half a second left. But Tasha Harris’ inbounds pass under the basket was deflected away, and Notre Dame escaped with the win.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textThat game last year was just the latest in a lopsided history between Syracuse and Notre Dame. Since the teams first started playing in 1988, Syracuse has won two games against the No. 8 Fighting Irish and has lost 23. The Orange’s only two victories came in 2002 and 1989, and unlike last year’s matchup, the games have not been close.SU (16-4, 4-3 Big East) will renew that rivalry when it travels to take on Notre Dame (18-4, 7-1) tonight at 7 p.m. in South Bend, Ind., where it will look for its first road victory over the Irish in program history.‘From what I’ve heard, Notre Dame is a tough place to play at,’ said sophomore guard Carmen Tyson-Thomas, who has not played in South Bend yet in her career. ‘They get a lot of fans. The fans are all into it.’Syracuse’s one-point loss a year ago was only the third single-digit defeat out of 23 total losses for the Orange against its Big East rival. The Irish’s average margin of victory against SU is 18.2 points per game.The matchup last season looked well on its way to another Notre Dame blowout after 20 minutes. The Irish’s 53 points in the first half were a season high for an SU opponent. They made eight 3-pointers by halftime and were shooting 50 percent from the field.But Syracuse buckled down in the second half. It held the Irish to seven field goals after the break, including two 3s. Still, Notre Dame held on as SU couldn’t execute in the final seconds of the game, something that plagued the Orange throughout last season.‘We’ve got to score the basketball down the stretch,’ SU head coach Quentin Hillsman said at the start of this season. ‘I think we had too many empty possessions in the last two minutes of basketball games (last year) where we wouldn’t score coming down the court. We’d throw the ball away.’To break the current 10-game losing streak to Notre Dame, SU will need to follow the same formula it used to slow down the Irish in the second half of their meeting last year.Notre Dame leads the conference in scoring offense this season, thanks in part to its 33 percent shooting from long range. If the Orange can shut down those opportunities and pound the ball inside, it should be within striking distance once again near the end of the game.And if it can buck the series trend and hang with the Irish, Hillsman said it will come down to the perimeter players with the clock winding down.‘Guard play is huge because normally at that juncture of the game, there’s a shot to be made or a shot to be taken or a decision to be made,’ Hillsman said. ‘That’s when your guards make the decision.’For SU, those guards are seniors Harris and Morrow, both of whom had chances to put the Orange in front late last year against Notre Dame. Although Syracuse has not played any games this season that have come down to the last possession, both have played in a multitude of close games throughout their careers.And in Morrow’s mind, those last few possessions come down to the little things.‘I think we’ve just got to finish ball games,’ she said. ‘Finish out the end of possessions, get defensive stops. Just do the little things that help us get over that last hump at the end of the game.’[email protected] Commentscenter_img Facebook Twitter Google+last_img read more