I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more
In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the Seventh Circuit stated in very clear terms that lower courts and parties to discrimination actions should not divide evidence into direct and circumstantial buckets under the familiar...more
The federal appeals court that covers Oklahoma recently ruled in favor of Dillon Companies, Inc., a Kansas corporation that does business as King Soopers, in a lawsuit filed by a former grocery store employee who claimed he...more
In May 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) issued an opinion with negative consequences for employers...more
The Tenth Circuit recently ruled that pretext would not be found if an employer terminated an employee based on a genuine belief that the employee had violated company policy....more
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying details of the “mixed-motive” defense applicable to discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Harris v....more
Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act...more
On December 10, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a critical victory to federal employees in a highly technical case. This decision now gives federal employees a simpler and less confusing process for appealing...more