Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020)
The question for the United States Supreme Court in this (and two companion cases) was whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is violated by an employer that terminates an employee merely for being gay or transgendered. In a 6-3 opinion written by President Trump’s first appointee to the
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2020 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Glynn v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 5th 47 (2019)
John Glynn worked as a pharmaceutical sales representative before he commenced a medical leave of absence for a serious eye condition (myopic macular degeneration). Glynn’s doctor provided a medical certification designating his work status as “no work” because Glynn “can’t safely drive.” Although the employer’s reasonable accommodation policy lists “reassignment to a vacant
Doe v. Department of Corr. & Rehab., 2019 WL 6907515 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)
John Doe, who worked as a psychologist at Ironwood State Prison, alleged discrimination, harassment and retaliation based upon a disability; Doe also alleged that the employer violated FEHA in that it failed to accommodate his two alleged disabilities (asthma and dyslexia) by failing to relocate him to a “cleaner and
We’re delighted to report that we secured two summary judgments in two separate alleged discrimination cases on behalf of a large Southern California hospital in matters that were pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
In one case, decided on July 12, 2019, the Court agreed with our client that the former employee had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and, as
As we have reported before, California is set to become the first state to prohibit employers from discriminating based upon hairstyle. Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the “CROWN Act” (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair).
The CROWN Act amends the state’s Education Code and Government Code to define “race or ethnicity” as “inclusive of traits historically associated with