http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/04/16/family-status-discrimination-part-1/ Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:19:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/04/16/family-status-discrimination-part-1/#comment-25747 James Peters Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:27:55 +0000 http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/?p=75#comment-25747 @Bethany: Family status DOES work both ways. I will be doing a post on this soon, but as a quick answer to your question it is just as wrong to pay someone less because they do not have a family as it is to pay someone without a family less, if that is indeed the motivation for their actions. Although the analysis is very fact-dependent, you would likely have a discrimination case. @Bethany: Family status DOES work both ways. I will be doing a post on this soon, but as a quick answer to your question it is just as wrong to pay someone less because they do not have a family as it is to pay someone without a family less, if that is indeed the motivation for their actions. Although the analysis is very fact-dependent, you would likely have a discrimination case.

]]> http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/04/16/family-status-discrimination-part-1/#comment-25723 Bethany Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:38:10 +0000 http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/?p=75#comment-25723 Is it possible that Family Status Discrimination works the other way? I have had two miscarriages and cannot have children and my company knows this. He has been working on getting me a promotion and it fell through because the "powers-that-be" don't see why I need the extra money since I don't have a family. This doesn't seem like it should be allowed. Is it possible that Family Status Discrimination works the other way? I have had two miscarriages and cannot have children and my company knows this. He has been working on getting me a promotion and it fell through because the “powers-that-be” don’t see why I need the extra money since I don’t have a family. This doesn’t seem like it should be allowed.

]]>