Total Articles: 10
Alleged comments by HR director sufficient to defeat company's motion for summary judgment.
Remarks by a law firm’s human resources director could be “direct evidence” of pregnancy discrimination and violation of the FMLA, according to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals. According to the court, such evidence falls outside of the “hearsay” objection that might otherwise keep it from being presented to a jury. Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 7th Cir., No. 10-3330, November 9, 2011.
Maternity leave, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and summary judgment
Let's play claim or no claim. Employee gives birth. She is terminated while on maternity leave. She sues under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Actions taken out of concern for employee's pregnancy may create basis for violation of Pregnancy Discrimination Act and ADA.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a company that transferred a pregnant employee out of a welding job and into a light duty tool room job without first undertaking an objective evaluation of the employees ability to do the welding job may be liable for violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spees v. JamesBuilt, LLC, 6th Circ., No. 09-5839, August 10, 2010.
Pregnancy Discrimination Update: Trial Court Erred By Barring Important Employer Defense To Discrimination.
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.
High Court Overturns Pregnancy Bias Ruling.
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.
HIGH COURT UPHOLDS PENSION SYSTEM THAT GAVE LIMITED CREDIT FOR PREGNANCY LEAVE TAKEN OVER 30 YEARS AGO.
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.
Supreme Court Finds No Current Violation of Title VII Based on Pre-PDA Leave Credit Policy.
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.
Justices Rule for Employer in Maternity Leave Case.
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.
A Bouncing Bundle Of Legal Trouble: Pregnancy Related Issues in the Workplace.
"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.
Pregnant Worker's Bias Suit Rejected (pdf).
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.
