|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Article Index » sex discrimination: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Pregnancy Discrimination Update: Trial Court Erred By Barring Important Employer Defense To Discrimination.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - November 05, 2009 What is a “mixed motives” defense? Lawyers often refer to this defense in the context of discrimination cases, and it is important for employers to understand this legal concept when making personnel decisions. A recent California case titled Harris v. City of Santa Monica turns on this defense. An appellate court has ruled that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the mixed motives defense. Report Link The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP - October 21, 2009 Maria Shriver is doing more than violating her state’s ban on cell phone use while driving this days. Perhaps her ambitious project is in part what compels her need to multi-task in the car (but please invest in a hands-free device, Maria, so the press can focus on your other admirable pursuits!). Report Link New Challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 06, 2009 On September 15, 2009, a bill (H.R. 3567, entitled the "Respect for Marriage Act of 2009") was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to "ensure respect for State regulation of marriage." Report Link Federal Appeals Court Allows Homosexual Employee's Title VII Gender Stereotyping Case to Proceed.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 01, 2009 In a decision that can make it easier for homosexual employees to sue their employers for discrimination, the federal appeals court in Pennsylvania has ruled that although federal law does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, it does prohibit employers from discriminating against gay and lesbian employees who do not conform with gender stereotypes. Report Link EEOC Revises Its Compliance Manual to Conform to Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 18, 2009 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has revised its Compliance Manual to implement the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Act, passed earlier this year, overturned the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 US 618 (2007), which held that a charge of compensation discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must be filed within 180 or 300 days of the first alleged “discriminatory” paycheck, depending upon whether the state has a state fair employment practice (“deferral”) agency. Under the Court’s decision, subsequent “discriminatory” wage payments did not resuscitate the prior filing period under the “continuing violation” theory. The Act, which significantly expanded the relevant statute of limitation, is retroactive to May 28, 2007, (the day before the Supreme Court’s decision) and permits suit as to pay discrimination claims pending on or after that date. Report Link Federal Legislation Introduced To Ban Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - August 28, 2009 Legislation was introduced in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives this summer to prohibit job discrimination on the basis of an employee’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. Report Link Ledbetter Act Prompts EEOC to Give Aggrieved Employees New Chance to Sue in Closed Cases.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 10, 2009 Some complainants in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s closed cases that involved wage issues may receive new right-to-sue notices from the agency. The Commission seems to be reviewing these cases in response to the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act early this year. This is an important development for employers because Congress has provided that individuals may file a civil action within 90 days after the notice of right to sue is given by the EEOC. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(e)(1). Thus, a new right-to-sue notice statutorily confers on claimants an additional 90 days to commence suit in cases that would have been barred by the original statute of limitations. Report Link High Court Overturns Pregnancy Bias Ruling.Ogletree Deakins - June 18, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an employer did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by granting limited service credit for purposes of calculating retirement benefits for pregnancy leaves taken before Title VII was amended in 1978 by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). In a 7-2 decision, the majority found that the company based its benefit calculations on a "bona fide" seniority system. Report Link Employee's Title VII Claim is Time-Barred Despite Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Third Circuit Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 15, 2009 Affirming summary judgment in favor of an employer, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has held that a plaintiff’s Title VII claim that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of gender by denying her a requested pay raise in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was time-barred. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached this conclusion despite passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which aids aggrieved employees in bringing suits for pay discrimination, but which the panel found was inapplicable. Report Link Paying a Male Replacement More than a Female Incumbent Can Lead to Liability.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - June 03, 2009 Employers should carefully review their compensation programs to ensure that legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons justify any material wage differentials between employees in the same job classifications, and wage rates that are below the current market rate. In Drum v. Leeson Electric Corp., 2009 WL 1350737 (8th Cir. May 15, 2009), the Court of Appeals ruled that a female human resources manager could proceed with her Equal Pay Act, Title VII and Missouri Human Rights Act claims for unequal pay because, in the court's view, the mere fact that the employer had to pay a higher, market rate to secure her replacement did not satisfy the employer's burden of proving that the plaintiff had been paid a below-market rate for reasons other than her gender.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Top Tips to Protect Your Workplace From Violence
Webinar
November 10, 2009 HR Learning Center LLCWorkplace Change in the Obama EraColumbus
November 10, 2009 Littler2009 Employment Practices ConferenceUniversal City
November 10, 2009 Ballard RosenbergFall Employment Law Mini-SeriesTysons Corner
November 10, 2009 LittlerBusiness Continuity During the H1N1 OutbreakWebinar
November 10, 2009 Littler"Action Steps for Upcoming Open Enrollment" Free E-BriefingWebinar
November 10, 2009 Ford & HarrisonLabor and Employment Law SeminarLos Angeles
November 11, 2009 OgletreeHR Network 2009 | RestonReston
November 12, 2009 CooleyThe Labor & Employment Compliance Costs of Federal ContractingWebinar
November 12, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyLa Jolla
November 12, 2009 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds