|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 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 HIGH COURT UPHOLDS PENSION SYSTEM THAT GAVE LIMITED CREDIT FOR PREGNANCY LEAVE TAKEN OVER 30 YEARS AGO.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2009 Since April 1979, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act has prohibited employers from adopting pension plans that give employees less retirement credit for pregnancy leave than for medical leave in general. But, in the case of AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the United States Supreme Court has now ruled that an employer may continue to treat pre-1979 pregnancy leave differently when making benefit calculations under a preexisting pension plan that is part of a bona fide seniority system. Report Link Supreme Court Finds No Current Violation of Title VII Based on Pre-PDA Leave Credit Policy.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 21, 2009 On May 18, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, holding that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by paying pension benefits calculated, in part, based on a system that did not give full credit for time spent on pregnancy-related leave but did give full credit for other types of medical leave, where the pregnancy leave accrual policy was applied only prior to the enactment of the PDA. Further, the Court held that the employer's benefit calculation rule was part of a bona fide seniority system under § 703(h) of Title VII, which insulates it from challenge. Report Link Supreme Court Rules Employers Not Required to Adjust Pension Benefits for Pre-1979 Maternity Leave.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 19, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the “PDA”) when it calculates pension benefits using a seniority-based system that does not accord full credit for time spent on maternity leave prior to Title VII’s ban on pregnancy discrimination. Report Link Justices Rule for Employer in Maternity Leave Case.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - May 18, 2009 On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court upheld AT&T's method of calculating pension benefits for women who, prior to the April 1979 effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), took pregnancy-related leave and did not receive full service credit for the period of their leaves. Report Link A Bouncing Bundle Of Legal Trouble: Pregnancy Related Issues in the Workplace.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - August 15, 2007 "You're too big to be working right now." Pregnancy complications aren't limited to the expecting mother. Employers may face the need to alter scheduling and even job duties to help accommodate pregnant mothers in the workplace. But employers who are not aware of laws regarding pregnancy discrimination will find themselves facing "too big" a problem. Report Link Oh Baby! Pregnancy Discrimination Complaints Are Rising.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 29, 2006 Recent statistical reports from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") indicate that the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints rose substantially in the decade following the 1991 amendments to Title VII. Report Link Pregnant Worker's Bias Suit Rejected (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - May 11, 2006 The federal appellate court with
jurisdiction over Tennessee employers
recently dismissed a lawsuit brought
by a pregnant employee who claimed
that her termination was discriminatory.
According to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, the employer had
already accommodated the employee
“to the greatest extent possible and
only terminated her when it reached
the limit of its accommodation.”
|
ArticlesFound: 9 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