California Employment News: Considerations for Employment Termination (Podcast)
California Employment News: Considerations for Employment Termination
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 9: Best Practices for Employers with John Saxon, Plaintiff’s Labor & Employment Attorney
#WorkforceWednesday: Termination Meetings on the Record - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Professional Breakup Advice: Convey Your Reason for Separation (or Termination)
Patient Steering and Charting
Employers: Benefits Considerations Post-Pandemic [More with McGlinchey Ep. 3]
I-21 – Sexual Harassment (Still), Political Tweeting, and Intersectional Discrimination
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
I-17 – Engaging Your Employees in Today’s Workplace, Featuring Rick Turner at Whirlpool Corporation
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
Day 22 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-10 Questions to Better Operationalize Compliance
Day 15 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-Employment Separation Issues
Episode 11: Legal and Business Issues Stemming From Employees' Out-of-Work Conduct
Warning Signs that Signal You Might be Terminated from Your Job
Friedman: Abramson Dismissal a 'Teachable Moment' for Companies
What is Wrongful Termination in Arizona?
Protecting Trade Secrets When Employees Depart
Federal Agency Charged Bridgeview Facility Illegally Fired Pregnant Social Worker - CHICAGO - Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center, a provider of short- and long- term medical and rehabilitation care located in...more
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
It now should be clear to employers in California that the litigation rules are different as to what must be presented in discrimination lawsuits to succeed. Notably, just last week, in Alamo v. Practice Management...more
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
Last week the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kemp v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc., holding that the plaintiff’s common law wrongful discharge claim was not precluded by the statutory remedies then available under...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that even when an employee proves that a discriminatory motive was a “substantial factor” in an adverse employment...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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