Alamo v. Practice Management Info. Corp.: Supreme Court Grants Review and Holds Pending Harris v. City of Santa Monica

In Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corporation (9/24/12) (discussed here) the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff in a pregnancy discrimination case need not prove "but for" causation, a "motivating factor" instruction was proper, and the "mixed motive" defense does not apply where the defendant denies that discrimination played any role in the alleged adverse employment action.

I guessed that the Supreme Court would grant review and hold pending its decision in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, and on January 23, it did just that.  Justice Baxter, who recused himself from Harris after his daughter was sued for pregnancy discrimination, did not take part in the decision, which otherwise was unanimous.  

Please remember that the State Bar of California, Labor and Employment Law Section will present a special "Watch List Webinar" on Harris within a week or two of the decision, which is due on March 4. Paul Cane, who argued as amicus for the defense, and David deRubertis, who argued for the plaintiff, have agreed to speak. Yours truly will moderate.

Stay tuned for more information.