|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 Employee's Discharge Case Alleging Discriminatory Male Stereotyping Revived by Appeals Court.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 02, 2009 Reversing summary judgment for the employer, the federal appeals court in New York has held that a supervisor’s statement that men have a propensity to harass women supported a claim of discriminatory stereotyping based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Right Act. Report Link Supreme Court Decides in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen in Favor of Employer and Addresses Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for First Time.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 28, 2009 On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Souter (with Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer dissenting), the Court held that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) when it pays pension benefits calculated in part based on an accrual rule – in use prior to the PDA's enactment – that gives less retirement credit for pregnancy than for short-term disability leave. The Court held that the employer's method of calculating benefits was insulated from a Title VII challenge because it was part of a bona fide seniority system. Report Link Evolving Theories of Sex Discrimination.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - April 28, 2009 Title VII has long declared it unlawful to discriminate against a person in employment “because of … sex.” The limits of the term “sex” under Title VII, however, continue to evolve. Traditionally, courts have confined Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to biological men and women, excluding from the statute’s protections any claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Report Link Abortions are Covered by Title VII Pregnancy Discrimination Amendments, Appeals Court Holds.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 09, 2008 Considering the issue for the first time, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that female employees' right to be protected against sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents an employer from terminating an employee for having an abortion. Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., No. 06-3625, (3d Cir. 2008). Title VII prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.) Report Link Third Circuit Rules Title VII Protects Women Who Have an Abortion.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 09, 2008 In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the protections generally afforded pregnant women under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), also extend to women who have elected to terminate their pregnancies. Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., Nos. 06-3625, 06-4508 (3d Cir. May 30, 2008). The PDA prohibits discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions."1 Consistent with the legislative history of the PDA and the interpretive guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Third Circuit found that an abortion is included in the "related medical conditions" referenced in the statute. Report Link Four Steps to Avoiding Stereotyping Based on Sex.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - November 17, 2006 A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights an emerging trend of “sex stereotype” challenges to employer grooming and appearance policies. The case also reveals several ways employers can craft policies to avoid these challenges. Report Link Court Permits Rejected Male to Proceed with Sex Discrimination Claim (pdf).Ford & Harrison LLP - May 15, 2006 A federal court in Indiana has held that a male
applicant who was rejected for a protection
officer/paramedic job can proceed with his
sex discrimination lawsuit against his employer, even
though the male applicant was ranked lower than
the female applicant who received the promotion.
See White v. Alcoa (March 27, 2006). In White,
four candidates, one woman and three men, applied
for the job of protection officer/paramedic. After
a manager and his team leaders interviewed the
candidates (all of whom met the basic qualifications
for the job), they ranked the candidates in order of
preference. The interviewers’ top choice was a male
applicant, followed by the female, then White and
another male. Report Link Employer's Makeup Requirement is Not Sex Discrimination (pdf).Ford & Harrison LLP - May 15, 2006 The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of an employee’s lawsuit in which she claimed that her employer’s requirement that she wear makeup at work violated Title VII. Report Link Ninth Circuit Upholds Makeup Requirement.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 02, 2006 On April 14, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its en banc opinion in Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co. , No. 03-15045 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2006), affirming the court's prior ruling that it was not unlawful gender-based discrimination for an employer to dismiss a female bartender for noncompliance with its dress and grooming standards that included a requirement that female bartenders wear makeup. The seven-four majority opinion affirmed the right of employers in the Ninth Circuit to enforce reasonable dress and grooming standards in the workplace.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
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