The case of Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton illustrates the importance of adhering to Title VII and FEHA guidelines to prevent religious discrimination in employment, highlighting the necessity for employers to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination.
With Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court has determined that under Title VII, any job transfer that adversely affects an employee's terms or conditions of employment due to their sex can be considered discrimination, regardless of whether it impacts salary, title, or benefits.
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) allows for "mixed motive" cases where disability need not be the sole cause but a significant factor in employment decisions. Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) exemplifies the application of "mixed motive" analysis, demonstrating the challenges and nuances in distinguishing between legitimate business decisions and discriminatory practices, and emphasizing the importance of clear documentation and accommodation in the workplace.
Unconscionability renders contracts unenforceable due to unfairness, involving procedural and substantive elements. In employment arbitration, as seen in Hasty v. AAA, unconscionability is crucial for validity, necessitating the need for conscionable drafting by California employers to ensure legal compliance.
California courts have recognized "associational" disability discrimination, allowing employees to bring claims on behalf of others. Recent cases shed light on the complexities and employer obligations, emphasizing the importance of reasonable accommodations and the interactive process.
Can secular courts decide employment disputes that occur at religious institutions?
There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.
