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… Continue Reading
By: Chelcey E. Lieber As widely reported, and as discussed in our blog post “Supreme Court Rules DOMA Section 3 Unconstitutional”, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman. The Court’s 5-4… Continue Reading
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The case, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ____ (2013), involved the portion of DOMA that stated that the federal government will only recognize marriages between opposite-sex spouses for purposes of federal law. There are over… Continue Reading
By: Chuck Post In Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court clarified a long open question, “Who is a supervisor under Title VII?” The question is important because employers are directly responsible for employee harassment by a supervisor. In the case of worker harassment of a co-worker, however, employer liability is less direct. In the… Continue Reading
By: Chuck Post In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court held that employees must show that “but for” the employer’s desire to retaliate, the employee would not have suffered an adverse action (demotion, termination, etc.) against him/her. Lower courts had been split over whether the “but for” standard was the… Continue Reading
By: Lizbeth V. West, Esq. The Ninth Circuit has referred the Peabody v. Time Warner Cable case to the California Supreme Court to answer this question. Under the commissioned salesperson exemption, or the “inside sales exemption” in Wage Orders 4 and 7 (ONLY) an employee is exempt from overtime if his or her earnings: 1)… Continue Reading
By: Chelcey E. Lieber Including arbitration provisions in employment agreements or employee handbooks is not a guaranteed way to avoid the courtroom. On January 3, 2012, the California Court of Appeal upheld a decision from the Sacramento County Superior Court holding that an arbitration provision contained in a pre-employment agreement was unconscionable, and, therefore, unenforceable.
By: Scott M. Plamondon UPDATED 12/21/2011: Based on the date on which the case was submitted at oral argument, the California Supreme Court was required to render a decision in this matter on or before February 6, 2012. On December 2, 2011, however, the Supreme Court agreed to accept additional briefing regarding whether its decision will… Continue Reading