Last week Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed Senate Bill 786, which will require employers to more extensively accommodate employees’ religious practices and observation. The bill passed both the Oregon House and Senate by wide margins earlier this Spring. The new law will take effect January 1, 2010.
Oregon law already prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s religion. Senate
To end its term, the Supreme Court today issued its long awaited opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano–a case that has received extra media attention because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel that decided the case below. The conservative justices on the Court reversed the Second Circuit (and
Just in time for Pride Month, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA) earlier this week. If passed, ENDA would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It would also prohibit employers retaliation against employees who oppose such discrimination who participate in any investigation or proceeding under
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that trial courts may not use a "mixed motive" framework in federal age discrimination cases. Rather, plaintiffs in age discrimination cases must prove that "but for" their age, they would not have been discriminated against. Click here to read the Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.
Under
As expected, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed Congress (the House passed the Senate version 250-177 on January 27). President Obama has announced he will sign the bill into law–the very first bill he will sign–on January 29. The Act will overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the time frame for bringing pay
The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2008-2009 term on October 6 with six labor and employment law cases on its docket. (For docket information and questions presented, click on the name of the case).
In the first case of its kind before a federal circuit court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held recently that an employer violated Title VII for terminating a female employee who underwent in vitro fertilization treatments. To read the opinion in Hall v. Nalco Company, click here.
The employer terminated the employee citing “absenteeism—infertility treatments.”
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether employers may be liable under Title VII for not giving female employees full credit for pregnancy leaves in calculating retirement benefits. AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, U.S., No. 07-543.
The Ninth Circuit ruled last August that AT&T violated Title VII by calculating the female