We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres, 2023 WL 2534998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Gabriela Lopez worked as shelter manager for a non-profit organization that provides services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. In September 2016, Lopez gave birth to a child; by December 17, 2016, Lopez had received the full four months of pregnancy-disability leave required by statute, including
In the recent $1.7 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden, two measures were included aimed at providing additional workplace protections for pregnant employees.
The first measure is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “PWFA”) which applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The PWFA extends the framework of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to employees
We invite you to review our newly-posted October 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Malloy v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 4298371 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
Eleanor Malloy began working remotely for her employer (which was located in Orange County) at her home in Los Angeles County in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Malloy filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging pregnancy discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In response,
Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011)
Gina Holmes sued her employer for harassment based on pregnancy, retaliation, constructive discharge, violation of the right to privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the defendants with respect to the claims for harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge, and a jury decided against Holmes with respect
FEHA ‘jury instructions’ ‘mixed motive’ ‘pregnancy’
Hulteen v. AT&T Corp., 2007 WL 2332071 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2007) (en banc)
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) became effective in 1979. Prior to the PDA, an AT&T employee who was on pregnancy leave was not awarded service credit for the period of her pregnancy leave, whereas employees who were on other temporary disability leaves received full credit for such
Hulteen v. AT&T Corp., 441 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2006)
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) became effective in 1979. Prior to the PDA, an AT&T employee who was on pregnancy leave was not awarded service credit for the period of her pregnancy leave, whereas employees who were on other temporary disability leaves received full credit for such absences. Four female employees
Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003)
Xin Liu lost her job as a scientist in the Concentrate Development Department of the Nutrilite Division of Amway approximately 18 months after she was hired. Liu, who was on a leave of absence following her pregnancy, was informed that her position had been eliminated during a downsizing that followed a merger of her