- Controversy over new EEOC guidelines on hiring ex-cons isn’t going away [James Bovard/Peter Kirsanow, Richard Epstein/Hoover “Defining Ideas”, Kevin Funnell, Wendy McElroy/FEE]
- That goes double if it’s true: “You cannot fire a pregnant employee because ‘the baby is taking its toll on you'” [Cohen, Fox Rothschild] Maryland bill would grant pregnant employees right to accommodation, “less strenuous job duties” if needed [Baltimore Sun]
- And similarly: “Is an employer obligated to provide light duty to an employee returning from FMLA leave?” [Jon Hyman]
- Why Card-Krueger study doesn’t change Bryan Caplan’s view on economics of the minimum wage [EconLib]
- Quest for a Labor Secretary even farther left than Hilda Solis eventuates in Tom Perez [Katrina Trinko, J. Christian Adams]
- Unhappy aftermath of Connecticut nursing-home sabotage [Washington Examiner] Assaults by members of Teamster local in Philadelphia quarry dispute draw NLRB response [Pennsylvania Independent]
- Will New York become the first state to create dangerous private right of action for “workplace bullying”? [Michael Fox]
- In DC today? I’ll be commenting at Cato on new Russell Nieli book on affirmative action [details]
- EEOC continues to pressure employers over use of criminal background checks in hiring process [Hans Bader, Daniel Schwartz, Jon Hyman, earlier]
- Bill in Congress would require employers to make ADA-like accommodation for pregnancy/childbirth [Hyman]
- “Religious freedom and the nondiscrimination norm” [Rick Garnett, Prawfs] What is supposed to make discrimination so tempting, anyway? [Bryan Caplan, EconLib]
- Lawsuit alleges that group car rental discount for members of gay group constitutes unlawful discrimination against straights [Volokh]
- Complainants argue in Strasbourg that UK failure to more fully accommodate Christians violates Euro human rights law [Telegraph]
- Push for ADA coverage of obesity raises controversy [Christina Wilkie, HuffPo]
- Federal preemption of state law: compare and contrast illegal-immigration control with auto and drug design [Ted and Carter at PoL; upcoming (Jul. 21) Cato panel discussion in DC]
- Authorities in Scotland let Lockerbie bomber off on doctor’s note. How’d that work out? [Bainbridge]
- Pay for your rescue: “French tourists may be billed if high-risk trips go wrong” [Guardian]
- Must revoke honorific California-state-rock status of serpentine! It contains asbestos! [L.A. Times “Booster Shots” via Amy Alkon]
- “Zero tolerance for bullying” — nice slogan, but think before endorsing [Helene Guldberg, Daily Mail via Skenazy]
- “The New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent” [Abigail Thernstrom, NRO; earlier]
- $113,800 in damages in pregnancy-bias suit against Lucasfilm, but demand for attorney’s fees could reach $1.2 million [SF Chronicle]
- Trial lawyers fear being cut out of BP TransOcean pie [WSJ Law Blog, Bainbridge, Calif. Civil Justice]
Some time ago, Baker & McKenzie got sued for sexual harassment. That case sent shockwaves throughout lawfirms nationwide.
A case out of New York last week (ABA Journal Online, 8/22) will not reverberate nearly that loudly but considering how some lawfirms are still perceived (fairly or unfairly) as not being “family-friendly”, the case should be of concern nonetheless.
A jury has awarded about $720,000 in damages to an associate and paralegal who claimed they were forced out of their New York law firm because of their pregnancies.
Garden City, N.Y., tax law firm Siegel, Fenchel & Peddy will only have to pay about $266,000 if the verdict is upheld because of a punitive damages cap, the firm’s lawyer told the New York Law Journal.
Obviously, there’s always more to the story than the headlines (and, it should be noted that the lawfirm strongly denied the allegations), but I can’t help but wonder how many other lawfirms are ripe for such lawsuits because of the perception of the firm. Given stereotypes of the hard-charging lawyer, it’s not that hard to then believe that a firm would discriminate against someone perceived to be not working as hard because of their pregnancy.