Recently in Employment Law Category

This week, the Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear a slew of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) challenges, along with a constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8. We’re guessing that the Court will grant at least one of the cases.

But before the Court can have its say on deciding DOMA’s fate, the Ninth Circuit has once again stepped into the DOMA spotlight. Last week, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council ordered a federal court in San Francisco to pay an employee’s costs for insurance coverage for his husband, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Bruce Matthews played football in the National Football League (NFL) for 19 years, first for the Houston Oilers and later for its successor team, the Tennessee Titans (Titans). He retired in 2002. In 2008, Matthews filed for workers’ compensation benefits in California.

Matthews claimed pain and disability resulting from injuries incurred while he was employed by the NFL at “various” locations over years of “playing and practicing professional football.” He didn’t allege that he sustained any particular injury in California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, undaunted by irony, reinstated an employee's disability discrimination claim against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Monday.

Yes, even the EEOC gets sued.

It seems that the Church of Scientology experiences renewed interest — both good and bad — every time Tom Cruise’s personal life endures a major shift.

(Maybe that’s why The Village Voice named Cruise as number 4 among the top 25 people crippling Scientology.)

But a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the Church of Scientology on Tuesday could generate far more buzz than Cruise’s personal life.

It's not easy to prove a TV discrimination claim, but that doesn't stop television personalities and hopefuls from filing employment discrimination lawsuits.

In April, two prospective contestants for The Bachelor filed a class action lawsuit against ABC for racial discrimination. In a far less publicized case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, two television reporters lost their age discrimination claims on Tuesday after failing to provide proof that a TV station discriminated against them due to their ages, reports The Associated Press.

California's same-sex couples won another federal court victory over the Defense of Marriage Act last week. Oakland-based District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled on Thursday that the California Public Employees' Retirement System, commonly known as CalPERS, must extend long-term care insurance to same-sex spouses and partners, reports the San Jose Mercury News.

Judge Wilken is the second federal judge in California to rule that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional. In February, Judge Jeffrey White ruled DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Karen Golinski, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals employee. The Golinski ruling is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Arizona law limiting benefits for same-sex domestic partners violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law, passed in 2009, eliminated health insurance coverage for same-sex partners of state employees.

Arizona initially extended healthcare benefits to opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners of state employees in 2008. Later that year, Arizona voters approved the Marriage Protection Amendment, which amended the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

In, 2009, Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2013, which included a "Section O" statutory provision, redefining "dependants" as "spouses," and thus eliminating coverage for domestic partners.

On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion granting class certification to the women in the Walmart gender discrimination lawsuit. Monday's decision has been hailed as a huge victory for the retail giant and for employers everywhere.

In 2004, a U.S. Federal District Court within the 9th Circuit certified the case to proceed as a class action lawsuit. The district court lawsuit alleged that Walmart discriminated against women in the way the retail giant recruited and promoted managers. The district court case was sent to appeal on the issue of class certification prior to final judgment on the discrimination issue.

The company formerly known as Price is breathing a sigh of relief today, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took their side in a wage and hour lawsuit this week.

Anyone who worked at one of the “Big 4” accounting firms could tell you about the grueling hours they likely had to put in, particularly during tax season. So is it any surprise that there would eventually be wage and hour lawsuits against those firms? According to the Sacramento Business Journal, the PricewaterhouseCoopers lawsuit isn’t a new phenomenon. In 2007, BDO Seidman was sued under a similar premise.

Is it considered employment discrimination, under California employment law, to require strict drug tests in the pre-employment phase?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says no, in Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association. While strict drug screenings could possibly eliminate former drug addicts from potential employment, this doesn’t rise to the level of employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

A noteworthy point for those who practice in areas other than California employment law (and as such, might not be wholly familiar with California employment discrimination law): under both the FEHA and the ADA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against recovering drug addicts, assuming that the recovering addicts have been successfully rehabilitated from their addiction.