At the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows Of Harvard College, Nos. 20-1199 & 21-707, 2023 WL 4239254 (U.S. June 29, 2023), outlawed race-based affirmative action in higher education. Splitting along ideological lines, the Court’s conservative supermajority ruled, 6-3, the college admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The monumental decision, which dispensed with 45 years of precedent allowing race-conscious admission policies to achieve a diverse student body, has upended the world of higher education.Continue Reading What Does Affirmative Action’s Death Knell Mean for Employers?
Firing
California Supreme Court Adopts Broader Definition of “Disclosure” Under State Whistleblower Law
In People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., the California Supreme Court resolved a split between the Courts of Appeal for the First and Second Districts over whether a protected “disclosure” under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) includes a report of unlawful activity made to an employer or agency that already knew about the reported unlawful activity. The Supreme Court held that it does.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Adopts Broader Definition of “Disclosure” Under State Whistleblower Law
California Supreme Court Holds That McDonnell Douglas Standard Should Not Be Used When Evaluating Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal., Jan. 27, 2022), the California Supreme Court clarified that whistleblower retaliation claims brought under Labor Code section 1102.5 should not be evaluated under the McDonnell Douglas test, but instead the standard enumerated in Labor Code section 1102.6. Under the section 1102.6 standard, a plaintiff must show that a protected activity was a contributing factor in a prohibited action against the employee by a preponderance of the evidence. The employer must then demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons, even if the employee had not engaged in protected action.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds That McDonnell Douglas Standard Should Not Be Used When Evaluating Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
New Employment Laws to Look Out for in 2021
On January 1, 2021, various new and amended employment laws will go into effect in California. Below is a summary of some of these laws that employers should make themselves aware of heading into the new year. All laws discussed in this post go into effect on January 1, 2021, unless otherwise noted.
Continue Reading New Employment Laws to Look Out for in 2021
States May Have Additional Layoff Notice Requirements Under “Mini-WARN” Statutes
The Workers Adjustment and Retaining Notification (WARN) Act requires employers with over 100 employees to follow certain notice requirements when laying off employees. 20 C.F.R. 693.6. WARN requires employers with 100 employees or more to give affected workers at least 60 days’ notice of any plant closing or mass layoff, with exceptions for, among others, “unforeseeable business circumstances.”
Continue Reading States May Have Additional Layoff Notice Requirements Under “Mini-WARN” Statutes
Coming Soon? Expanded Employment Protections for Victims of Sexual Harassment
In a continuing trend that began with the launch of the MeToo Movement, the California legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 171, another proposed law designed to expand safeguards for employees who have been the victims of sexual harassment. This latest measure follows California’s enactment of a new law in 2017, which, as we discussed in a previous article, requires that employers provide all new (and certain current) employees with an explanation of rights for victims of sexual assault and stalking.
Continue Reading Coming Soon? Expanded Employment Protections for Victims of Sexual Harassment
Yoga and Massage Therapist Fired for Being “Too Cute” Sees Gender Discrimination Claim Revived on Grounds of Unjustified Spousal Jealousy
A New York appeals court recently ruled in Edwards v. Nicolai (153 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2017)) that an employment termination motivated by the sexual jealousy of an employer’s spouse may support a claim for gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).
Continue Reading Yoga and Massage Therapist Fired for Being “Too Cute” Sees Gender Discrimination Claim Revived on Grounds of Unjustified Spousal Jealousy
New Year, New Rules for Employers Doing Business in New Jersey
This past year New Jersey state and local legislatures implemented several employment laws that are set to take effect at the end of 2015 or in early 2016. This update summarizes these new legal requirements to help New Jersey employers prepare and comply in 2016.
Continue Reading New Year, New Rules for Employers Doing Business in New Jersey