<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Blog entries - May 2009</title>
		<description>Blog entries - May 2009</description>
		<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:37:36 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>How to Win an Employment Discrimination Trial: &quot;Opportunity&quot; and &quot;Outcome&quot;</title>
			<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com/blog/equal-opportunity</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;Americans clearly believe in equal opportunity even as they reject programs that mandate equal outcomes.&quot;  So writes pollster Frank Luntz in his book, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. The observation is a remarkably valuable insight for anyone preparing an employment discrimination lawsuit trial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whether representing the employee or the employer, the challenge that Luntz's insight presents during an employment discrimination trial is to remain focused onRead More...</description>
			<author>ggordillo@eeoattorney.com</author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 19:31:10 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Qui Tam Claims Expanded by Congress.  Whistleblowers Now More Likely To Win Cases.</title>
			<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com/blog/qui-tam-claims-expanded-by-congress-whistleblowers-now-more-likely-to-win-cases</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;The False Claims Act that prohibits false claims made for government money has been expanded.  Civil claims brought to enforce the law are known as qui tam actions.  On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (&quot;FERA&quot;).  Two of the changes to the law are likely to have great impact on future whistleblower claims.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;The two key changes to qui tam law are that:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;A whistleblower no longer has to prove an intent to obtain payment usiRead More...</description>
			<author>ggordillo@eeoattorney.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 22:55:12 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>How to Prepare for Employment Dispute Mediation</title>
			<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com/blog/how-to-approach-mediation-of-employment-lawsuits</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;How to approach mediation was the subject of an interesting blog entry by Michael Maslanka, the managing partner of the labor &amp; employment law firm, Harrison &amp; Ford in Dallas.  I don't agree with everything he writes, but his thoughts are a helpful contribution to lawyers and clients trying to resolve disputes.  Many of his thoughts hit the bulls eye, and all of his thoughts ought to be considered when preparing for mediation. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Maslanka, an employer side lawyer, calls mediatRead More...</description>
			<author>ggordillo@eeoattorney.com</author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 21:20:36 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Being uncivil in a civil lawsuit never pays</title>
			<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com/blog/being-uncivil-in-a-civil-lawsuit-never-pays</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;Lawsuits over a job loss or a pay loss are never pleasant.  That does not mean the civil lawsuit has to be uncivil.  But the responsibility for keeping the animosity that exists between the lawsuit embroiled employee and employer out of the lawsuit belongs to their lawyers.  Without such responsible lawyers, fighting the dispute can be as costly as resolving it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;I was compelled to publish this thought by an article I read today about a discovery fight in a New Jersey case about lost oRead More...</description>
			<author>ggordillo@eeoattorney.com</author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 19:22:44 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Greg Gordillo responds to Workplace Prof Blog Thoughts on Hulteen</title>
			<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com/blog/greg-gordillo-responds-to-workplace-prof-blog-thoughts-on-hulteen</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;Professor Marcia McCormick at the Workplace Prof Blog wrote an interesting analysis of the United States Supreme Court's Hulteen pregnancy discrimination decision that I wrote about in a post yesterday.&amp;nbsp; Her comments cause me to respond below.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prof. M:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your analysis is thought provoking, but I think mistaken to the extent you believe the Hulteen Court &quot;implicitly concludes that Congress did not define sex discrimination in the PDA, but simply added an additional classificatioRead More...</description>
			<author>ggordillo@eeoattorney.com</author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 02:19:23 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pregnancy Discrimination in Pension Plan Not Unlawful</title>
			<link>http://www.eeoattorney.com/blog/pregnancy-disrimination-in-pension-plan-not-unlawful</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amendment to Title VII has again been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Yesterday, the Court announced AT&amp;T v. Hulteen. The Court ruled that decisions made by an employer that were adverse to pregnant employees and based on pregnancy are not unlawful if made before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act became law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed in 1978. It became effective in 1979. Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Read More...</description>
			<author>ggordillo@eeoattorney.com</author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 02:25:41 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
