I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
Pregnancy discrimination continues to evolve following the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Young v. UPS. As anticipated, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released an updated guidance, Q&A resource,...more
A recent case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, Young v. UPS (issued March 25, 2015), caught the attention of many women and employers as well. In Young, the Court interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), in...more
In This Issue: - Supreme Court Revives Pregnant UPS Worker's Suit - Spouses of H-1B Visa Holders Applying for Residency Eligible for Work Permits - Turning Metrics Into Money: An Interview With Solange Charas,...more
Since the case was argued on December 3, 2014, practitioners and clients alike have been anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. That wait is over as the Supreme Court issued a...more
This is one of our "ones to watch for 2015" – Young v. UPS. The legal question certified by the Supreme Court in 2014 was: Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that...more
On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States settled a controversy surrounding an employer’s policy that provided light-duty work for certain employees (including some disabled employees) but not for pregnant...more
With its forthcoming decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42...more
Readers of this blog have seen several posts on the topic of pregnancy discrimination. In the last couple of weeks, the following additional developments concerning the topic have occurred...more
In an important ruling for employers, the Fourth Circuit recently underscored that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) does not require employers to provide pregnant workers with special accommodations. Young v. United...more