|
2003-6
Refusal to Fire In Favor of "Someone Hot" May
be Protected
A California Court of Appeal has ruled that a cosmetic
company that fired an executive for refusing his order to replace one
saleswoman with someone he considered to be "hot" looking can sue for
job retaliation under the state's job bias laws. The case also lowers
the standard for when an employer action is an "adverse employment action"
by redefining the term to refer to any act "reasonably likely to deter
protected activity." Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.
Full
Story
Extension of Benefits Not an ERISA Plan
The Ninth Circuit ruled ERISA does not
apply to the extension of a severance package with a change reducing the
pay-out, since the severance package was not a plan under ERISA. Winterrowd
v. American General Annuity Insurance Company
Full
Story
| 
