Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 20th century

Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) represents formal changes and reforms regarding women's rights. That includes actual law reforms as well as other formal changes, such as reforms through new interpretations of laws by precedents. The right to vote is exempted from the timeline: for that right, see Timeline of women's suffrage. The timeline also excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism: for that, see Timeline of feminism.
In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School – Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)). There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
The Convention reaffirms the consensual nature of marriages and requires the parties to establish a minimum marriage age by law and to ensure the registration of marriages.
– Women over 45 (lowered to 40 in 1974, raised back to 45 in 1985) – Women who had already delivered and reared four children (raised to five in 1985) – Women whose life would be threatened by carrying to term due to medical complications – Women whose fetuses were malformed – Women who were pregnant through rape or incest
The act: -Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory. -Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials. -Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit. -Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy). -Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands. -Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870). – Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges. – Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools. In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States. The act was repealed in 1978.
Doctors who failed to adhere to the provisions of this section were liable to civil and criminal prosecution "as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted." Franklin and others sued, arguing that the provision was both vague and overbroad. In a 6–3 decision written by Roe author Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court agreed, finding that requiring a determination "if... the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe the fetus may be viable" was insufficient and impermissibly vague guidance for physicians who might face criminal liability if a jury disagrees with their judgment.
The law was challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by a woman, who argued that the law discriminated on the basis of sex because so few women were veterans.
Abortion is permitted under the following circumstances:
In addition, the law states that "account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment", suggesting that abortions can be performed on socioeconomic grounds. Belize does not provide an explicit exception for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest.
The registered medical practitioner that performs the abortion will continue to act in accordance with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
-The right to liberty; -The right not to be expelled from Botswana; -The right not to be subjected to degrading treatment; and -The right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex.
The Court concluded that the right to liberty had been infringed because the provision hampered a woman's free choice to marry a non-citizen and, in fact, undermined marriage. The Court also decided that the right not to be expelled from Botswana was infringed because, if the plaintiff's resident permit was not renewed, she would be forced to leave Botswana if she desired to stay with her family. Finally, the Court stated that the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment was infringed because any law discriminating against women constitutes an offense against human dignity. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Botswana Court of Appeal.