Is this new UPS pregnancy discrimination decision really such great news for employers?

HINT: Check the dates!!!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit* held this week that there is no "reasonable accommodation" requirement for pregnancy. The defendant, United Parcel Service, had a collective bargaining agreement that required it to offer light duty in two ...

Well! OK!

It's been an interesting week, hasn't it? Congratulations to President Obama on winning a second term. My Election 2012 coverage would not be complete without some labor and employment prognostications for Obama Administration II.*

*Please do not read these again in 2016 to see how accurate I was. I don't want to be known as the Dick Morris of employment law bloggers.

I was all set to write this week about the EEOC's new Strategic Plan for 2012-16, but it was so darned vague, I'm not sure what I can meaningfully say about it. (In Roget's Thesaurus, or maybe it was The Devil's Dictionary, somebody said "strategic" was a synonym for "so indefinite that you can easily take the credit for achieving your goals, and no one will be the wiser if you failed. See also

Never . . . well, hardly ever. ("What, never? No, never! What, never? Well . . . hardly ever! He's hardly ever sick at sea . . .")

Our friends at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently scored another big win in a pregnancy discrimination case -- actually got summary judgment against the employer, which is unusual. In this case, the employer apparently knew it had messed up ...

Earlier this summer, in writing about reference information for bad employees (I call them "the Axis of Evil"), I mentioned employment investigations, noting that this was a topic for another post. Well, today is the day. Now that the Supreme Court has officially recognized "cat's paw" liability for employers whose decisions are tainted by an individual with an unlawful motive, it ...