WorkLife Law Blog

WorkLife Law aims to end Family Responsibilities Discrimination, which is employment discrimination against workers who have family caregiving obligations. It includes discrimination against parents of young children, pregnant women, and workers who have aging or sick parents, spouses, or partners.

Saturday, July 28, 2007


Article about FRD and WorkLife Law in NY Times

Eyal Press has written a terrific piece about Family Responsibilities Discrimination and WorkLife Law that will appear in tomorrow's Sunday magazine. But you can get a sneak peek here.


Our New Web Site

WorkLife Law now has a new website with improved navigation and lots of new content. Employers, employees, attorneys, and unions each have their own areas with information focused just on them.

Please let us know what you think of the site. If you have ideas for additional information or features that you'd like to see, please let us know that, too. Comments can be posted here or sent to us at Web at worklifelaw dot org.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007


ABA Teleconference on FRD

The ABA held a teleconference today about Family Responsibilities Discrimination (if you missed the program and want to order a recording, you can click here: EEO WorkLife Initiatives: Family Responsibilities Discrimination). The program covered why FRD is such a hot issue in employment law right now, how the claims arise and how they are litigated, the recent EEOC enforcement guidance, statutes and causes of action commonly used by FRD plaintiffs, key cases, compliance and prevention, and litigation tips.

Many thanks to Carolyn Lerner of Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman for moderating, to Margaret Murray of the Law Offices of Margaret E. Murray in San Francisco for providing the management perspective, and Cynthia Calvert of the Center for WorkLife Law for discussing the plaintiff's perspective.

Many thanks, too, to the many participants in the audience. For the benefit of the audience, here are citations to some of the cases mentioned during the teleconference:

Back v. Hastings on Hudson, 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (stereotyping is gender discrimination).

Knussman v. Maryland, 16 F. Supp. 2d 601 (D. Md. 1998), motion for new trial granted in part, denied in part by, 65 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D. Md. 1999); award vacated & remanded, 272 F.3d 655 (4th Cir. 2001).

Schultz v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 01 C 0702 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (FMLA, $11.65 million verdict).

Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20206, 78 Fair Empl. Prac. 1826 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

O’Neal v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30305 (N.D. Ala. 2004) (employer wins PDA/ADA case).

Detels v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11942 (Ct. App. Cal. 4th 2002) (employer wins CFRA case).

Additional information about FRD can be found at WorkLife Law's web site.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?