As a thirty-something, it seems like most, if not all of my friends are pregnant or actively trying to get pregnant. It is the topic of dinner conversation, coffee talk, and phone dates. And with the marked surge in pregnancy discrimination claims in the American workplace, it seems as if women are ramping up their knowledge of their rights and actively exercising them.

There are two principal means of proving employer discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and parallel Ohio law: disparate treatment and disparate impact. In the overwhelming majority of employment discrimination cases that our Section litigates, plaintiffs attempt to prove discrimination by showing disparate treatment. The purpose of this article is to shed light on the lesser-used means of proving discrimination and the types of policies that may potentially result in a disparate impact.

The State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR) recently began issuing the following standard procedural order in all disciplinary appeals.

Employer Lawsuit Against Complaining Employee Not Per Se Retalitory Under Ohio Law.

Consider the scenario where an employer wins an employee’s sexual harassment case in court, and then turns around and sues the employee for having filed the claim. Is the employer setting itself up for a retaliation lawsuit? It took three different lawsuits to engage the Ohio Supreme Court to resolve this issue of first impression.

In February 2008, the Department of Labor released alengthy summary of proposed changes to regulations interpreting the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). While a significant portion of the comments are organizational in nature, or seek to clarify ambiguous language in the regulations, several proposed changes are substantive in nature. This review is by no means an exhaustive list of the proposed changes; it simply addresses some of the more significant proposals likely to affect a large number of employees and employers with respect to qualification under and administration of the FMLA.