|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Sea Captain Unlawfully Terminates Pregnant Shipmate.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - September 04, 2009 Zibute Scherl loved boating, and she had made a career of it. She was a licensed Merchant Marine Officer who had worked on a variety of vessels, including a 60 foot fishing yacht as a second captain. Report Link Same-Sex Couples Retain Employment Law Rights Despite Supreme Court Ruling.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - June 05, 2009 The California Supreme Court issued a ruling in late May upholding Proposition 8. Does this ruling affect employee rights in the workplace? Report Link California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Gains Voter Acceptance.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 13, 2008 A controversial state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California, Proposition 8, has won voter approval in the November general election, complicating the legal landscape for employers. Approved by voters 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent, the California Marriage Protection Act, as it is called, adds a new provision to the California Constitution limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Report Link Same-Sex Marriage Decision Creates Uncertainty for California Employers (pdf).Jackson Lewis LLP - October 20, 2008 The California Supreme Court’s landmark decision
granting same-sex couples the right to
marry, In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999 (May 5,
2008), has created for employers in the Golden
State, as well as multistate companies with workers
in California, an uncertain legal landscape with
respect to their employment policies. Report Link How Does California’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Impact Employers?Ford & Harrison LLP - July 07, 2008 As most affected employers are aware, California recently became the second state (after Massachusetts) to recognize same-sex marriages. In In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and is a form of unconstitutional discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law also invalidated California’s Proposition 22, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California. Report Link Challenges in Implementing California Court's Decision Granting Same-Sex Couples Right to Marry.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 22, 2008 One aspect of the recent landmark California Supreme Court decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry that has received little attention from legal experts thus far has been its impact upon employers and their employment policies. In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999 (Cal. May 5, 2008). Absent a stay of the decision pending a possible ballot initiative to amend the state Constitution in November 2008, employers probably can expect newly married same-sex couples to seek treatment equal to that accorded their heterosexual co-workers, including spousal benefits, when the decision takes effect. It does so on June 14, 2008, thirty days after it was issued. Unless a stay is issued, employers should not await the outcome of a possible ballot initiative before complying with the decision’s requirements, since doing so would risk sexual orientation discrimination claims. We address below some of the more common inquiries employers should expect once same-sex couples marry. Report Link California Supreme Court Opens the Door on Same-Sex Marriage.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 22, 2008 In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court held that the state's Constitution guarantees the right to marry to same-sex couples as well as to couples of the opposite sex. As domestic partners already enjoy broad rights under a patchwork of recently enacted state domestic partner laws, the primary consequence of the California Supreme Court's decision for employers is to bring same-sex couples within the sweep of pre-existing policies providing benefits to married couples. The following is an update for employers on the current status of the law. Report Link Calculation of Retirement Benefits Affected by Discriminatory Policy Which Pre-Dated Pregnancy Discrimination Act Held Unlawful (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 15, 2007 In Huelteen v. AT&T, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel held that calculation of retirement benefits violated the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act where the calculation was based on a seniority-accrual system in place in the late 1960s and 1970s which discriminated against employees on pregnancy leave, even though application of the discriminatory policy pre-dated the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The 11-4 decision essentially reaffirmed an identical ruling against AT&T’s predecessor, Pacific Bell, in 1992, and overturned a three-judge panel’s decision to overrule the earlier case on the grounds that it was an improper retroactive application of the PDA. Report Link California Expands List of Prohibited Workplace Conduct.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 12, 2003 A recent amendment to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act has expanded the definition of "sex" to include the term "gender" in the prohibitions against workplace discrimination and harassment.
|
Employment 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