2004-16

Inducing the termination of an at-will employment relationship may be actionable

In a case handled by BRG&S, the California Supreme Court has ruled that a departing partner could be sued inducing an at-will employee to terminate his employment relationship under the tort theory of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. In finding the partners' actions improper, the Court set a major precedent for claims for interference with at-will contracts in general, and for lawyers leaving a law firm in particular.

Full Story

Recent amendments to FEHA are not retroactive

The California Court of Appeal has held that the 2003 legislation holding employers liable for failure to prevent sexual harassment by clients and customers were not retroactive because they created new law rather than clarified existing law. The Court found that though Legislature clearly intended that amendments be retroactive, such application would violate due process.

Full Story

Public employee not required to exhaust administrative remedies for FEHA-related nonstatutory claims

A California Court has held a public employee is not required to exhaust internal administrative remedies for causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In so ruling, the Court found that to require an employee to exhaust internal remedies for an FEHA-related non-statutory claim might impair a public employee's right to pursue a statutory FEHA claim because the administrative process might result in a finding that has a preclusive effect on the FEHA claim.

Full Story

Ministerial exception precludes pastor's reasonable accommodation

The ministerial exception under discrimination law for certain religious employer precludes a Pastor's claim against his employer for an alleged failure to accommodate his disability. The Ninth Circuit found that not only does the ministerial exception apply to hiring and firing decisions, but also to decisions regarding reasonable accommodation. The Court focused on the fact that a minister's working conditions and the church's decision regarding whether or not to accommodate an minster's disability, are a part of the minister's employment relationship with the church, and therefore the ministerial exception applied.

Full Story

Transsexualism not protected by Title VII, but discrimination against cross-dressing may be prohibited sexual stereotyping

Revising an earlier decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has found that although transsexualism is not a protected category under Title VII. However, the Court went on to hold that sexual stereotyping was actionable, and that since an employer may not discriminate against women for not wearing dresses or make-up, conversely, an employer may not discriminate against men for wearing dresses or make-up, or otherwise acting femininely.

Full Story

[ back to top ]