This bill was in direct response to the decision in Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (2013), which found that an employee who merely makes a request for an accommodation does not engage in protected activity for purposes of a FEHA retaliation claim. Under this bill, the Government Code
Abercrombie & Fitch (AF) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, on the basis that the headscarf she wore during her interview conflicted with AF’s “Look Policy” which prohibits employees from wearing “caps” (a term that the Policy did not define). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. Elauf wore the headscarf as part of her religious practice as a Muslim but she did not communicate this to the manager who interviewed her nor did she ask for an accommodation in order to wear the headscarf.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Issues its Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Answering the Question: When Does an Employer Have to Accommodate an Applicant’s Religious Practices?
Recently, my Alma Mater, The University of Southern California, was sued by a former member of the Trojan football team. Former cornerback Brian Baucham filed a lawsuit against USC and former coach Lane Kiffin, alleging he suffered permanent injuries after being forced to play in a game while he was ill. Baucham’s lawsuit claimed that he was “forced by Coach Kiffin to play a home game even though Mr. Baucham was very ill and diagnosed by the USC Health Clinic with an influenza-like illness, viral pharyngitis and dehydration.” After playing in a game against Berkeley, “Baucham suffered from cardiopulmonary damage, as well as brain injury with neurocognitive deficits,” according to the lawsuit. Baucham alleges that USC and Kiffin violated both the NCAA and USC injury protocol programs when they forced him to play.
This got me to thinking: Now that the National Labor Relations Board has found that scholarship football players are employees under the NLRA, what if Mr. Baucham filed suit against USC as an employee?…
Continue Reading Why Employers Should Think Twice Before Making Employees Play Hurt
Summary of Program
Join the attorneys from Weintraub Tobin’s Labor and Employment Group as they discuss important legal developments from 2013 and review the complexities of a number of new laws facing employers in 2014.
- New Federal and State Legislation and Regulatory Requirements
- Updates in the World of Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation Law
By: James L. Brannen
In Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 131, the Second Appellate District of California, for the first time, has addressed whether an employer who provides the full amount of leave allotted by the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) to a pregnant employee with early pregnancy-related disabilities, can still be held liable for failing to provide additional leave to that employee under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as a reasonable accommodation until after the employee gives birth.