News & Analysis as of

California Fair Employment and Housing Act Hiring & Firing Pregnancy Discrimination

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Egg Retrieval Procedures Not Protected By FEHA

Affirming summary judgment for an employer, a California appellate panel said an employee could not advance claims of harassment, discrimination and retaliation based on her egg retrieval procedures....more

Fisher Phillips

California Court Rules That Egg Retrieval and Freezing Procedures Do Not Qualify for Pregnancy Protection – But Employers Should...

Fisher Phillips on

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal concluded that a worker could not advance a pregnancy discrimination claim based on alleged mistreatment following egg retrieval and freezing procedures – but employers...more

Vedder Price

2020 California Employment Law Roundup

Vedder Price on

As 2019 draws to a close, employers in California have a busy new year ahead of them with expanded legal obligations, including significant new legislation regarding independent contractor status and mandatory arbitration...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Employment Law Commentary, March 2016

The California Fair Employment And Housing Council Issues Proposed Regulations To Limit Consideration Of Criminal History In Employment Decisions - Employers take great measures to avoid hiring dangerous employees—not...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

California Employment Law Notes - March 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on

In this Issue: - California Supreme Court Revises Jury Instructions And Trial Procedures In Discrimination Cases, Harris v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013) - Employee Who Exhausted Four Months Of...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Fenwick Employment Brief - March 2013

Fenwick & West LLP on

In This Issue: - Feature Articles: - California Court Of Appeal Significantly Expands Pregnancy Leave Rights - New York Employer's Flex-time Policy Precluded Holding Employee Accountable For Tardiness ...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

California Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly Decision on Mixed-Motive Defense

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. The California high court upheld the “mixed-motive” defense in cases brought under California’s Fair Employment...more

Fisher Phillips

California Supreme Court's "Mixed Motive" Ruling May Have Major Impact on Fair Employment and Housing Claims

Fisher Phillips on

On February 7, 2013 the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed that backpay and reinstatement are not available remedies for a plaintiff under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) when an employer...more

Orrick - Employment Law and Litigation

California Supreme Court to Clarify Standard of Proof in FEHA Discrimination Cases

Last month, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will clarify the standard of proof required for “mixed-motive” discrimination claims under the California Fair Housing and Discrimination Act...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

California Employment Law Notes - January 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on

In This Issue: - $1.347 Million Award To Former General Counsel For Breach Of Implied Contract Is Upheld - Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc., 211 Cal. App. 4th 726 (2012) - $114,000 Pregnancy...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Court Of Appeal Relies On “Motivating Factor” As Standard Of Causation In FEHA Case

Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., No. B230909 (Cal. App. 2d, Sept. 24, 2012): In Alamo, a former employee who was fired upon her return from maternity leave brought a lawsuit for pregnancy discrimination in...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide