Termination, FEHA, Pregnancy Discrimination

Employment Law Advisory for April 2, 2013: Pregnant Employees May Be Entitled To More Than The Four Month Leave Permitted By The...

by Hopkins & Carley on 4/3/2013

Most California employers are keenly aware that California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) requires an employer to allow an employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, to take a leave...more

The California Supreme Court Provides Mixed Result in Mixed Motive Terminations

by W. George Wailes | Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn -... on 3/22/2013

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, the California Supreme Court provided long-awaited clarification of the standards that apply when an employer terminates an employee for “mixed motives”—that is, when...more

California Employment Law Notes - March 2013

by Proskauer Rose LLP on 3/19/2013

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 Employment Brief - March 2013

by Allen M. Kato, Michael A. Sands | Fenwick & West LLP on 3/14/2013

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

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

by Ellen Cohen, Paula Weber | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 2/13/2013

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

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

by Fisher & Phillips LLP on 2/12/2013

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

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

by Michael Aparicio, Tim Long, Lena Ryan | Orrick - Global Employment Law Group on 1/18/2013

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

California Employment Law Notes - January 2013

by Harold Brody, Enzo Der Boghossian, Anthony Oncidi, Kenneth Sulzer, Mark Theodore | Proskauer Rose LLP on 1/14/2013

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

California Court of Appeal Overturns $1.3 Million in Damages and Attorneys’ Fees against Lucasfilm for Failure to Give Instruction...

by Steve Chariyasatit, Kristen Jacoby, Gary Siniscalco | Orrick - Global Employment Law Group on 12/19/2012

On December 10, 2012, in Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., a California Court of Appeal overturned a Marin County jury’s verdict against Lucasfilm based on its finding that several errors in jury instructions prejudicially affected...more

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

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on 11/14/2012

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

Home

Legal News

Find a Lawyer

Browse Subjects

Subscribe

Pro Services

For Reporters

Termination › FEHA › Pregnancy Discrimination