|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 Fourth Circuit Recognizes Different Decision Maker in Title VII Sex Discrimination Case (pdf).Nexsen Pruet - May 07, 2007 A plaintiff must ordinarily demonstrate replacement by someone outside his or her protected class to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. In Lettieri v. Equant, Inc., 478 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2007), however, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized an exception to this requirement when the termination and replacement decisions were made by different people. 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: 7 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Affirmative Action : An Overview of Your Obligations
Jackson
August 25, 2008 Baker DonelsonPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Online
August 26, 2008 Shaw ValenzaManaging Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire Woods |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
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