News & Analysis as of

Does an Employer Have an Obligation to Provide Accommodations to Pregnant Employees? Don't Follow This Employer's Lead

Ena Wages served as a property manager for one of several apartment complexes owned by Stuart Management Corp. She began her employment on November 17, 2008, and this is significant under the FMLA because nearly one year...more

“Oh, What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive.”

Employer avoids liability for harassing texts sent by rogue employee - In an interesting decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled that an employer is not liable for discriminatory and harassing texts...more

Step Three to Pay $60,000 for EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Suit

Hawaii Resort Retailer Disciplined and Fired a Buyer Due to Fertility Treatments and Pregnancy Restrictions, Federal Agency Charged - HONOLULU - Step Three, Ltd., a Hawaiian resort retailer, will pay $60,000 for...more

Lactation and Breast-Feeding Are “Pregnancy Related Conditions” Protected Under Title VII

In EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark decision finding that terminating a female employee because she is lactating or expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the...more

Labor Letter, July 2013: Can You Fire Someone For Being Too Sexy?

In a recent case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, the judges held that such an action is acceptable under the law. Before your mind starts wandering too far about the repercussions of this decision, let’s not get ahead of...more

Inconsistent Reasons for Termination Allow Pregnant Employee’s Discrimination Case to Proceed to Jury

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a home care agency, holding that a jury should be allowed to determine whether the agency’s reasons for firing an...more

Failure To Provide Additional Leave As ADA Accommodation Could Prove Costly To Employers

For ages, the employer community has awaited guidance from the EEOC regarding how much additional leave, if any, an employer is required to provide an employee as an ADA reasonable accommodation when an employee is unable to...more

Fifth Circuit Holds Lactation Discrimination is Unlawful Sex Discrimination

Court of Appeals Ruling Overturns District Court's Finding, Permits EEOC's Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Houston Funding II LLC to Go Forward - HOUSTON--Overturning a federal trial court's decision from the...more

Landau Uniforms Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $80,000

Health Care Clothing Manufacturer Fired Employee Due to Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged - OXFORD, Miss. Landau Uniforms, Inc., a Mississippi-based company that manufactures and distributes medical scrubs and other...more

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

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

To Terminate or Not to Terminate. . . That is the Question

The Facts – “What Happened?”: The plaintiff, Ms. Mocic, worked as an EMT for the employer/defendant (SCEMS) for almost four years. She became pregnant in 2009. She requested and was granted an apparently uneventful...more

The California Supreme Court Provides Mixed Result in Mixed Motive Terminations

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

University School of Milwaukee to Pay $37,500 in EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

Employee Was Fired Because of Her Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged - MILWAUKEE - A Milwaukee K-12 school will pay $37,500 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal...more

California Employment Law Notes - March 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

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

Employment Law Reporter – March 2013: Pregnant With Practical Possibilities

California state courts see an average of ten to twenty employment lawsuits filed every day. Discrimination and wrongful termination claims are still quite prevalent in those filings. The recent California Supreme Court case...more

California Supreme Court Rules "Mixed Motive" Is a Mixed Bag for Employers

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the defenses available to employers defending against claims of discrimination. In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. BC341469 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the court ruled that, if a...more

Adventures in Learning to Pay $31,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Federal Agency Says Day Care Center Refused to Allow Pregnant Teacher to Work - CHICAGO - Adventures in Learning Aurora, Inc., an Aurora, Ill.-based childcare center with approximately 100 employees across four...more

Reed Pierce’s Pays $20,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

JACKSON, Miss. - Reed Pierce's Sportsman's Grille, doing business as Reed Pierce's bar in Byram, Miss., will pay $20,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment...more

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

Legal Alert: California Supreme Court Issues "Mixed Motive" Decision Favorable To Employers

According to a new California Supreme Court opinion, once an employee claiming discrimination demonstrates that a discriminatory reason for his or her termination substantially motivated an adverse employment decision, the...more

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

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 Upholds “Mixed Motive” Defense in Employment Discrimination Cases

In a long-awaited ruling issued Thursday, February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision overturning a damages verdict against the City of Santa Monica, finding that employers may...more

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

California Employment Law Notes - January 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

26 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2