Super User

Super User

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has formally declared that Title VII does not protect transgender workers from employment discrimination, which is contrary to previous guidance issued under the Obama administration.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that it will launch two new trainings for employers: Leading for Respect (for supervisors) and Respect in the Workplace (for all employees).

The Trump administration has rolled back an Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement that employers include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal has held in, Castleberry v. STI Group, that a single word or incident may create a hostile work environment.




Assembly Bill (A.B. 168), authored by Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, has passed the assembly and is headed to Governor Brown for consideration.

A.B. 450, introduced by Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), prohibits employers from voluntarily consenting to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) inspections in nonpublic areas of the workplace, unless the agent has a warrant.

SB 63 ("New Parent Leave Act") is a bill authored by California Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected maternity and paternity leave for Californians who work for smaller employers of 20 or more, has passed the Senate floor with a 25-13 vote. The bill now heads to the Governor’s desk for his signature. SB 63 for an estimated 2.7 million Californian parents who work for smaller companies with 20-49 employees. Under current law, only those who work for an employer of 50 or more are eligible for job-protected parental (“baby-bonding” leave). Read more here:






In Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, No. 7:13-cv-02063-TMP, 2015 WL 6123209, (N.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2015), Stephanie Hicks ("plaintiff"), was a patrol officer on a narcotics task force working for the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has asked the California Supreme Court to answer the question of whether “time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7?

The California Court of Appeal, 4th District, has affirmed that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule does not preempt employees’ emotional distress claims arising from discrimination or retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).