If you’re straight, your fertility treatments are covered. If you’re queer like me, you're out of luck
SF Chronicle Opinion - Mara Berton
April 26, 2023
Kids were always a part of our plans. Immediately after our honeymoon, we found a clinic to begin fertility treatments. After our initial consultation, we were excited and hopeful. Then, we got a call from our insurance provider Aetna saying it wouldn’t cover my treatments because of its infertility policy, which at the time said that a member could get coverage for fertility treatments only “if he or she is unable to conceive or produce conception after 1 year of frequent, unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse.”
In other words, if you’re a straight, cisgender couple, you simply have to tell your doctor that you haven’t been able to get pregnant for 12 months — and Aetna will cover your fertility treatments.
If you’re a queer couple like us, however — and can’t partake in the beautiful mysticism of “frequent, unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” — you are eligible for coverage only after you’ve proven that you’ve undergone and paid out-of-pocket for “at least 12 cycles of artificial insemination,” the very same, absurdly expensive treatments you’re seeking coverage for.
It’s obvious to me that the only reason Aetna denied us coverage for our fertility treatments is because we are queer; a dehumanizing reminder that queer people are still treated as second-class citizens. Aetna has since tweaked its policy language, but the substance hasn’t changed.
Read more....
SF Chronicle Opinion - Mara Berton
April 26, 2023
Kids were always a part of our plans. Immediately after our honeymoon, we found a clinic to begin fertility treatments. After our initial consultation, we were excited and hopeful. Then, we got a call from our insurance provider Aetna saying it wouldn’t cover my treatments because of its infertility policy, which at the time said that a member could get coverage for fertility treatments only “if he or she is unable to conceive or produce conception after 1 year of frequent, unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse.”
In other words, if you’re a straight, cisgender couple, you simply have to tell your doctor that you haven’t been able to get pregnant for 12 months — and Aetna will cover your fertility treatments.
If you’re a queer couple like us, however — and can’t partake in the beautiful mysticism of “frequent, unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” — you are eligible for coverage only after you’ve proven that you’ve undergone and paid out-of-pocket for “at least 12 cycles of artificial insemination,” the very same, absurdly expensive treatments you’re seeking coverage for.
It’s obvious to me that the only reason Aetna denied us coverage for our fertility treatments is because we are queer; a dehumanizing reminder that queer people are still treated as second-class citizens. Aetna has since tweaked its policy language, but the substance hasn’t changed.
Read more....
NWLC Files Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit Against Aetna Alleging Fertility Policies Discriminate Against LGBTQ People
Media Contact:
Jessica Baskerville
jbaskerville@nwlc.org
202.588.5180
San Jose, CA- On April 17, 2023, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), alongside law firms Liu Peterson-Fisher LLP and Altshuler Berzon, LLP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Aetna alleging that their coverage policies discriminate nationwide against LGBTQ people seeking to get pregnant using fertility treatments. The plaintiff in this case, Mara Berton, was required by Aetna’s policy to incur significant out-of-pocket expenses and delay building her family while heterosexual couples are provided immediate access to coverage for the same fertility treatments.
The lawsuit alleges that Aetna’s policy, which requires LGBTQ people seeking fertility treatments in order to become pregnant to pay more and wait longer to access the fertility benefits covered by their health plans, violates Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I am being denied coverage because I am in a same-sex relationship,” said plaintiff Mara Berton. “My treatments are considered ‘not medically necessary,’ as if I could become pregnant by simply choosing to have heterosexual intercourse outside of my relationship, as if being gay were a choice. Fertility treatments are just as necessary for me to have a child with my partner as they are for cisgender heterosexual couples who aren’t able to get pregnant without medical assistance. We shouldn’t have to prove that obvious fact by spending thousands of dollars out of pocket. It’s a just reminder that LGBTQIA+ people and our relationships are still treated as second-class in many ways.”
“Aetna’s discriminatory policy creates an additional hurdle for queer couples to expand their families,” said June Higginbotham, Mara’s wife. “The decision to become parents should not be hindered by Aetna’s discriminatory policy and the ensuing financial burden that it creates. Queer people deserve equitable access to reproductive healthcare.”
NWLC previously filed a class action lawsuit against Aetna on behalf of LGBTQ individuals in New York. This new lawsuit now seeks damages on behalf of LGBTQ Californians harmed by Aetna’s discriminatory fertility policy, as well as nationwide injunctive relief to end Aetna’s discriminatory policy once and for all.
“Aetna is deliberately discriminating against people in queer relationships from New York to California and refusing to change their ways. It is a shame we are forced to file yet another lawsuit against them, but we are proud to fight for our clients who deserve care, no matter who they love and choose to build a family with,” said Alison Tanner, Senior Litigation Counsel for Reproductive Rights and Health Litigation at NWLC. “Thousands of people across the country are having their plans to build their families delayed or potentially completely derailed by these burdensome policies, with particularly egregious harms imposed on queer people of color, and insurance companies must make these policies a thing of the past.”
“Aetna knows perfectly well that its policies force LGBTQ people to pay thousands of dollars before their fertility procedures are covered, and it has deliberately chosen to line corporate pockets at our community’s expense,” said Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, co-lead counsel from Liu Peterson-Fisher LLP.
“Aetna has a made a deliberate choice to deny its LGBTQ members equal access to fertility treatments that Aetna makes readily available to those in heterosexual relationships,” said Connie Chan, co-lead counsel from Altshuler Berzon, LLP. “Aetna’s discriminatory policy causes profound harm to LGBTQ people and is in direct violation of federal law.”
Individuals whose health plans unfairly discriminate against LGBTQ couples seeking fertility treatments can provide the attorneys with more information in two ways: by email LGBTQFertilityLawsuit@nwlc.org or by filling out this google form: https://bit.ly/LGBTQFertilityLawsuit.
Our Filings
Original Complaint Filed April 2023
Media Contact:
Jessica Baskerville
jbaskerville@nwlc.org
202.588.5180
San Jose, CA- On April 17, 2023, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), alongside law firms Liu Peterson-Fisher LLP and Altshuler Berzon, LLP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Aetna alleging that their coverage policies discriminate nationwide against LGBTQ people seeking to get pregnant using fertility treatments. The plaintiff in this case, Mara Berton, was required by Aetna’s policy to incur significant out-of-pocket expenses and delay building her family while heterosexual couples are provided immediate access to coverage for the same fertility treatments.
The lawsuit alleges that Aetna’s policy, which requires LGBTQ people seeking fertility treatments in order to become pregnant to pay more and wait longer to access the fertility benefits covered by their health plans, violates Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I am being denied coverage because I am in a same-sex relationship,” said plaintiff Mara Berton. “My treatments are considered ‘not medically necessary,’ as if I could become pregnant by simply choosing to have heterosexual intercourse outside of my relationship, as if being gay were a choice. Fertility treatments are just as necessary for me to have a child with my partner as they are for cisgender heterosexual couples who aren’t able to get pregnant without medical assistance. We shouldn’t have to prove that obvious fact by spending thousands of dollars out of pocket. It’s a just reminder that LGBTQIA+ people and our relationships are still treated as second-class in many ways.”
“Aetna’s discriminatory policy creates an additional hurdle for queer couples to expand their families,” said June Higginbotham, Mara’s wife. “The decision to become parents should not be hindered by Aetna’s discriminatory policy and the ensuing financial burden that it creates. Queer people deserve equitable access to reproductive healthcare.”
NWLC previously filed a class action lawsuit against Aetna on behalf of LGBTQ individuals in New York. This new lawsuit now seeks damages on behalf of LGBTQ Californians harmed by Aetna’s discriminatory fertility policy, as well as nationwide injunctive relief to end Aetna’s discriminatory policy once and for all.
“Aetna is deliberately discriminating against people in queer relationships from New York to California and refusing to change their ways. It is a shame we are forced to file yet another lawsuit against them, but we are proud to fight for our clients who deserve care, no matter who they love and choose to build a family with,” said Alison Tanner, Senior Litigation Counsel for Reproductive Rights and Health Litigation at NWLC. “Thousands of people across the country are having their plans to build their families delayed or potentially completely derailed by these burdensome policies, with particularly egregious harms imposed on queer people of color, and insurance companies must make these policies a thing of the past.”
“Aetna knows perfectly well that its policies force LGBTQ people to pay thousands of dollars before their fertility procedures are covered, and it has deliberately chosen to line corporate pockets at our community’s expense,” said Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, co-lead counsel from Liu Peterson-Fisher LLP.
“Aetna has a made a deliberate choice to deny its LGBTQ members equal access to fertility treatments that Aetna makes readily available to those in heterosexual relationships,” said Connie Chan, co-lead counsel from Altshuler Berzon, LLP. “Aetna’s discriminatory policy causes profound harm to LGBTQ people and is in direct violation of federal law.”
Individuals whose health plans unfairly discriminate against LGBTQ couples seeking fertility treatments can provide the attorneys with more information in two ways: by email LGBTQFertilityLawsuit@nwlc.org or by filling out this google form: https://bit.ly/LGBTQFertilityLawsuit.
Our Filings
Original Complaint Filed April 2023
Stanford agrees to promote gender equity as part of settlement with female athletes
SF Chronicle - Bob Egelko
August 27, 2021
After suing Stanford over its now-abandoned plans to eliminate five women’s sports teams, a group of female athletes said Friday they had settled their case with a commitment by the university to promote gender equity in athletics, on subjects ranging from scheduling and equipment to coaches’ pay and athletic scholarships.
Stanford announced in July 2020 that it would be dropping 11 of its 36 varsity sports programs at the end of the 2020-21 school year because of financial concerns. They included women’s teams in fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, squash and synchronized swimming.
In a lawsuit filed in May, women on those teams said the cancellations violated Title IX, the law prohibiting gender discrimination by schools and other institutions receiving federal funding. They said women totaled 50.9% of Stanford’s undergraduates but fewer than half of its varsity athletes, and the gap would widen if the sports were eliminated.
Facing that suit and another accusing the university of deceiving incoming student-athletes, Stanford announced six days later that its financial outlook had improved and it would retain the 11 teams. The women maintained their suit, however, before announcing Friday’s settlement.
Read more....
SF Chronicle - Bob Egelko
August 27, 2021
After suing Stanford over its now-abandoned plans to eliminate five women’s sports teams, a group of female athletes said Friday they had settled their case with a commitment by the university to promote gender equity in athletics, on subjects ranging from scheduling and equipment to coaches’ pay and athletic scholarships.
Stanford announced in July 2020 that it would be dropping 11 of its 36 varsity sports programs at the end of the 2020-21 school year because of financial concerns. They included women’s teams in fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, squash and synchronized swimming.
In a lawsuit filed in May, women on those teams said the cancellations violated Title IX, the law prohibiting gender discrimination by schools and other institutions receiving federal funding. They said women totaled 50.9% of Stanford’s undergraduates but fewer than half of its varsity athletes, and the gap would widen if the sports were eliminated.
Facing that suit and another accusing the university of deceiving incoming student-athletes, Stanford announced six days later that its financial outlook had improved and it would retain the 11 teams. The women maintained their suit, however, before announcing Friday’s settlement.
Read more....
Joint Settlement to Resolve Stanford University Title IX Lawsuit
Media Contacts:
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher
rpetersonfisher@liulawpc.com
THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
Dee Mostofi
Office of University Communications
Stanford University
dmostofi@stanford.edu
(Stanford, CA, August 27, 2021) — Stanford University and five women undergraduate athletes have reached a joint settlement to resolve and dismiss a Title IX lawsuit filed this May in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. According to the agreement, Stanford will conduct its next gender equity review in the upcoming year and develop a plan to ensure that all aspects of the University’s intercollegiate athletics program are in full compliance with Title IX no later than the 2023-24 academic year. The plan will be made public on Stanford’s website by October 1, 2022.
Stanford Title IX Coordinator Stephen Chen will play a significant role in the review and will approve the final plan. Mr. Chen previously spent two decades as an attorney with U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title IX. The review will assess gender equity in a number of specific areas: participation opportunities; provision of equipment and supplies; scheduling of games and practice times; travel and per diem allowances; opportunities to receive coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities; provision of medical and training facilities and service; provision of housing and dining facilities and services; publicity; and athletic scholarship awards.
The University will directly engage with student-athletes and coaches of each team within Stanford Athletics as part of the gender equity review process. To facilitate additional stakeholder engagement, the University will set up a portal for student-athletes and athletics staff to express comments and concerns relating to the gender equity review, with the option to do so anonymously. “We were able to work together to come up with a process that will really engage the Stanford athlete community,” said the Plaintiffs’ attorney, Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of The Liu Law Firm, P.C. “Our goal is gender equity in all aspects of Stanford athletics and we’re looking forward to working together to achieve that,” said plaintiff Liana Keesing, co-captain of Stanford’s fencing team.
Media Contacts:
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher
rpetersonfisher@liulawpc.com
THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
Dee Mostofi
Office of University Communications
Stanford University
dmostofi@stanford.edu
(Stanford, CA, August 27, 2021) — Stanford University and five women undergraduate athletes have reached a joint settlement to resolve and dismiss a Title IX lawsuit filed this May in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. According to the agreement, Stanford will conduct its next gender equity review in the upcoming year and develop a plan to ensure that all aspects of the University’s intercollegiate athletics program are in full compliance with Title IX no later than the 2023-24 academic year. The plan will be made public on Stanford’s website by October 1, 2022.
Stanford Title IX Coordinator Stephen Chen will play a significant role in the review and will approve the final plan. Mr. Chen previously spent two decades as an attorney with U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title IX. The review will assess gender equity in a number of specific areas: participation opportunities; provision of equipment and supplies; scheduling of games and practice times; travel and per diem allowances; opportunities to receive coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities; provision of medical and training facilities and service; provision of housing and dining facilities and services; publicity; and athletic scholarship awards.
The University will directly engage with student-athletes and coaches of each team within Stanford Athletics as part of the gender equity review process. To facilitate additional stakeholder engagement, the University will set up a portal for student-athletes and athletics staff to express comments and concerns relating to the gender equity review, with the option to do so anonymously. “We were able to work together to come up with a process that will really engage the Stanford athlete community,” said the Plaintiffs’ attorney, Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of The Liu Law Firm, P.C. “Our goal is gender equity in all aspects of Stanford athletics and we’re looking forward to working together to achieve that,” said plaintiff Liana Keesing, co-captain of Stanford’s fencing team.
Stanford says it won’t cut sports after lawsuits and pressure from athletes
The Washington Post - Glynn A. Hill and Molly Hensley-Clancy
May 18, 2021
When Stanford University announced last July that it would cut close to a third of its varsity sports, it sparked a backlash by athletes and alumni, raised concerns about the future of the U.S. Olympic pipeline and led, last week, to a pair of lawsuits against the school.
Now the school is reversing itself. University officials on Tuesday announced plans to reinstate the sports it planned to cut after this academic year, citing “an improved financial picture with increased fundraising potential.”
“We have new optimism based on new circumstances, including vigorous and broad-based philanthropic interest in Stanford Athletics on the part of our alumni, which have convinced us that raising the increased funds necessary to support all 36 of our varsity teams is an approach that can succeed,” Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne said in a statement.
The school intended to cut five NCAA-sponsored sports (men’s volleyball, wrestling, field hockey and men’s and women’s fencing) and six others (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash and synchronized swimming). Those 11 sports have produced 20 national championships and 27 Olympic medals.
Read more....
The Washington Post - Glynn A. Hill and Molly Hensley-Clancy
May 18, 2021
When Stanford University announced last July that it would cut close to a third of its varsity sports, it sparked a backlash by athletes and alumni, raised concerns about the future of the U.S. Olympic pipeline and led, last week, to a pair of lawsuits against the school.
Now the school is reversing itself. University officials on Tuesday announced plans to reinstate the sports it planned to cut after this academic year, citing “an improved financial picture with increased fundraising potential.”
“We have new optimism based on new circumstances, including vigorous and broad-based philanthropic interest in Stanford Athletics on the part of our alumni, which have convinced us that raising the increased funds necessary to support all 36 of our varsity teams is an approach that can succeed,” Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne said in a statement.
The school intended to cut five NCAA-sponsored sports (men’s volleyball, wrestling, field hockey and men’s and women’s fencing) and six others (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash and synchronized swimming). Those 11 sports have produced 20 national championships and 27 Olympic medals.
Read more....
Stanford Faces Two Lawsuits for Decision to Cut Sports
The New York Times - Billy Witz
May 13, 2021
Athletes at Stanford filed a pair of lawsuits against the university on Wednesday in a last-ditch effort to force it to reinstate most of the 11 sports it is axing at the end of the current school year.
One suit, filed by eight athletes, is claiming fraud and breach of contract, arguing that Stanford did not disclose to recruits that it was formulating plans to drop the sports, which, the suit said, had been in the works for years. The other suit is asking for an injunction on behalf of five women, arguing that dropping their sports would violate Title IX laws.
The suits, which were filed in United States District Court in San Jose, Calif., are similar to those filed by athletes at Brown University, which agreed to reinstate five of the 11 sports it had planned last year to eliminate.
Stanford said in a statement on Thursday that it was “surprised and disappointed” in the suits.
More than 30 universities, ranging from Clemson to Central Michigan, have eliminated sports teams during the coronavirus pandemic, according to the Business of College Sports website. But no university has cut more teams, or drawn more attention, than Stanford, which is declining to dip into its endowment, which was about $29 billion as of March, to finance one of the N.C.A.A.’s most successful broad-based athletic programs.
Read more....
The New York Times - Billy Witz
May 13, 2021
Athletes at Stanford filed a pair of lawsuits against the university on Wednesday in a last-ditch effort to force it to reinstate most of the 11 sports it is axing at the end of the current school year.
One suit, filed by eight athletes, is claiming fraud and breach of contract, arguing that Stanford did not disclose to recruits that it was formulating plans to drop the sports, which, the suit said, had been in the works for years. The other suit is asking for an injunction on behalf of five women, arguing that dropping their sports would violate Title IX laws.
The suits, which were filed in United States District Court in San Jose, Calif., are similar to those filed by athletes at Brown University, which agreed to reinstate five of the 11 sports it had planned last year to eliminate.
Stanford said in a statement on Thursday that it was “surprised and disappointed” in the suits.
More than 30 universities, ranging from Clemson to Central Michigan, have eliminated sports teams during the coronavirus pandemic, according to the Business of College Sports website. But no university has cut more teams, or drawn more attention, than Stanford, which is declining to dip into its endowment, which was about $29 billion as of March, to finance one of the N.C.A.A.’s most successful broad-based athletic programs.
Read more....
Athletes sue Stanford over plan to eliminate 11 sports by end of school year
Mercury News - John Woolfolk and Elliott Almond
May 12, 2021
A group of Stanford athletes sued the university Wednesday over plans to cut 11 non-revenue sports programs at the end of the current school year for budgetary reasons made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Athletes from eight of the teams filed a suit in U.S. District Court in San Jose while women athletes from fencing, field hockey, rowing, squash and synchronized swimming alleged sex discrimination in a separate complaint in the same court.
The complaint said university officials misled students about their opportunities to participate at Stanford, home to the country’s most successful intercollegiate athletics program, thereby denying them a chance to pursue their sports at other colleges.
The first complaint alleges fraud, intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract.
In the parallel suit, women athletes said the planned cuts will eliminate more than 100 athletic participation opportunities for female athletes, leaving Stanford in violation of Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs.
The complaint said that the women would have to give up their Olympic dreams in favor of completing their Stanford educations if their five sports are not reinstated.
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, the women’s attorney, said as much as Title IX has done for female athletes, the law is violated all the time. “People need to look past the rhetoric and look at how schools are really treating female athletes and that’s what we’re seeing here,” she said.
Read more....
Mercury News - John Woolfolk and Elliott Almond
May 12, 2021
A group of Stanford athletes sued the university Wednesday over plans to cut 11 non-revenue sports programs at the end of the current school year for budgetary reasons made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Athletes from eight of the teams filed a suit in U.S. District Court in San Jose while women athletes from fencing, field hockey, rowing, squash and synchronized swimming alleged sex discrimination in a separate complaint in the same court.
The complaint said university officials misled students about their opportunities to participate at Stanford, home to the country’s most successful intercollegiate athletics program, thereby denying them a chance to pursue their sports at other colleges.
The first complaint alleges fraud, intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract.
In the parallel suit, women athletes said the planned cuts will eliminate more than 100 athletic participation opportunities for female athletes, leaving Stanford in violation of Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs.
The complaint said that the women would have to give up their Olympic dreams in favor of completing their Stanford educations if their five sports are not reinstated.
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, the women’s attorney, said as much as Title IX has done for female athletes, the law is violated all the time. “People need to look past the rhetoric and look at how schools are really treating female athletes and that’s what we’re seeing here,” she said.
Read more....
Stanford students sue to stop school from canceling some varsity sports programs
SF Chronicle - Bob Egelko
May 12, 2021
Stanford’s decision to eliminate 11 varsity sports, nearly one-third of its intercollegiate sports program, was challenged in federal court Wednesday by athletes on eight of the teams, who say the university hid its intentions, misled them into enrolling and violated their rights. A separate suit by female athletes on five of the teams accuses Stanford of sex discrimination.
“The students are at the top of their game, and will lose the irreplaceable, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fulfill their dreams to compete at the varsity level if Stanford is not stopped from eliminating these teams,” attorney Jeffrey Kessler said in a statement accompanying the suits, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose.
“Stanford’s athletic opportunities disproportionately go to men already, and the plan to cut teams will affect more female athletes than male athletes,” said Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, lawyer for the women.
The university, whose overall intercollegiate sports program has been honored by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics as the most successful in the nation for more than two decades, announced abruptly last July that it would terminate 11 of its 36 varsity programs at the end of the 2020-21 school year for economic reasons.
Read more....
SF Chronicle - Bob Egelko
May 12, 2021
Stanford’s decision to eliminate 11 varsity sports, nearly one-third of its intercollegiate sports program, was challenged in federal court Wednesday by athletes on eight of the teams, who say the university hid its intentions, misled them into enrolling and violated their rights. A separate suit by female athletes on five of the teams accuses Stanford of sex discrimination.
“The students are at the top of their game, and will lose the irreplaceable, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fulfill their dreams to compete at the varsity level if Stanford is not stopped from eliminating these teams,” attorney Jeffrey Kessler said in a statement accompanying the suits, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose.
“Stanford’s athletic opportunities disproportionately go to men already, and the plan to cut teams will affect more female athletes than male athletes,” said Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, lawyer for the women.
The university, whose overall intercollegiate sports program has been honored by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics as the most successful in the nation for more than two decades, announced abruptly last July that it would terminate 11 of its 36 varsity programs at the end of the 2020-21 school year for economic reasons.
Read more....
Daily Journal Names Jennifer Liu to List of Top 75 Labor and Employment Lawyers in California for 2020
July 15, 2020
Managing Partner Jennifer Liu has been selected by the Daily Journal as one of California's top 75 labor and employment lawyers for 2020. The annual list recognizes 75 of California's top attorneys who have made significant contributions in labor and employment law. This is Ms. Liu's second consecutive year being named to the list.
When asked by the Daily Journal what she loves best about her job, Ms. Liu responded: "It's easy in times like these to feel like we are all helpless to change these enormous problems facing our country, like racism and sexual harassment. I love that being an advocate for employees gives me a way to make a difference, even if it is just one client or one company at a time."
Read more....
July 15, 2020
Managing Partner Jennifer Liu has been selected by the Daily Journal as one of California's top 75 labor and employment lawyers for 2020. The annual list recognizes 75 of California's top attorneys who have made significant contributions in labor and employment law. This is Ms. Liu's second consecutive year being named to the list.
When asked by the Daily Journal what she loves best about her job, Ms. Liu responded: "It's easy in times like these to feel like we are all helpless to change these enormous problems facing our country, like racism and sexual harassment. I love that being an advocate for employees gives me a way to make a difference, even if it is just one client or one company at a time."
Read more....
All Three LLF Attorneys Selected as 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
July 10, 2020
The Liu Law Firm, P.C. ("LLF") announced today that all three of the firm’s attorneys, Jennifer Liu, Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, and Logan Talbot, have been recognized as Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for 2020.
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher has been selected to the 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Ms. Peterson-Fisher was named by Super Lawyers as a Southern California Rising Star in 2015 and 2016, and a Northern California Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.
Jennifer Liu has been selected to the 2020 Northern California Rising Stars list for the fourth consecutive year, beginning in 2017. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Logan Talbot joins the list as a first-time 2020 Northern California Rising Star.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, visit SuperLawyers.com.
July 10, 2020
The Liu Law Firm, P.C. ("LLF") announced today that all three of the firm’s attorneys, Jennifer Liu, Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, and Logan Talbot, have been recognized as Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for 2020.
Rebecca Peterson-Fisher has been selected to the 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Ms. Peterson-Fisher was named by Super Lawyers as a Southern California Rising Star in 2015 and 2016, and a Northern California Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.
Jennifer Liu has been selected to the 2020 Northern California Rising Stars list for the fourth consecutive year, beginning in 2017. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Logan Talbot joins the list as a first-time 2020 Northern California Rising Star.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, visit SuperLawyers.com.
More employees are filing retaliation charges — here’s what every whistleblower should know
MarketWatch - Meera Jagannathan
February 19, 2020
Sometimes, revenge is a dish served at work.
Retaliation charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continued their upward climb last year, with the 39,110 charges making up 53.8% of all charges filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2019, according to data published last month. The share of retaliation charges, which are the most frequently filed charge, has steadily increased over the past several years: In 2009, they made up just 36% of all charges.
Whistleblowers have made headlines in recent years, including those who spoke out against sexual harassment and abuses of power as part of the ever-evolving #MeToo movement. But the question of what constitutes unlawful retaliation and how to respond can be vexing for the average employee.
Allegations of retaliation have also surfaced in recent news, most notably in response to President Trump’s removal of National Security Council staffer Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, two witnesses who had testified in the House impeachment inquiry. Yevgeny Vindman, Vindman’s twin brother who also worked for the National Security Council but didn’t testify, was also dismissed; the brothers were reportedly reassigned to the Army.
“Well, I’m not happy with him,” Trump said of Alexander Vindman prior to his departure. “Do you think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.”
Read more....
MarketWatch - Meera Jagannathan
February 19, 2020
Sometimes, revenge is a dish served at work.
Retaliation charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continued their upward climb last year, with the 39,110 charges making up 53.8% of all charges filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2019, according to data published last month. The share of retaliation charges, which are the most frequently filed charge, has steadily increased over the past several years: In 2009, they made up just 36% of all charges.
Whistleblowers have made headlines in recent years, including those who spoke out against sexual harassment and abuses of power as part of the ever-evolving #MeToo movement. But the question of what constitutes unlawful retaliation and how to respond can be vexing for the average employee.
Allegations of retaliation have also surfaced in recent news, most notably in response to President Trump’s removal of National Security Council staffer Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, two witnesses who had testified in the House impeachment inquiry. Yevgeny Vindman, Vindman’s twin brother who also worked for the National Security Council but didn’t testify, was also dismissed; the brothers were reportedly reassigned to the Army.
“Well, I’m not happy with him,” Trump said of Alexander Vindman prior to his departure. “Do you think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.”
Read more....
Grocery Workers Reach $2.8M Settlement in Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
January 21, 2020
San Francisco – On January 17, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, granted preliminary approval of a $2.8 million settlement in a pregnancy discrimination case brought on behalf of current and former Raley’s supermarket workers in California. Equal Rights Advocates, with The Liu Law Firm, P.C. and Outten & Golden LLP, represented the plaintiffs.
The case was brought in Sacramento County Superior Court in April 2015 on behalf of two named plaintiffs and a proposed class of current and former employees of Raley’s supermarkets who alleged they were denied reasonable accommodations for their pregnancies. The lead plaintiff, Lucianna Borrego, worked for Raley’s in Ukiah, California. Kirsten Kelly, the second named plaintiff, worked at a Bel Air market in the Sacramento region. Both plaintiffs claimed they were placed on leave when they sought accommodations relating to their pregnancies.
Read more....
January 21, 2020
San Francisco – On January 17, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, granted preliminary approval of a $2.8 million settlement in a pregnancy discrimination case brought on behalf of current and former Raley’s supermarket workers in California. Equal Rights Advocates, with The Liu Law Firm, P.C. and Outten & Golden LLP, represented the plaintiffs.
The case was brought in Sacramento County Superior Court in April 2015 on behalf of two named plaintiffs and a proposed class of current and former employees of Raley’s supermarkets who alleged they were denied reasonable accommodations for their pregnancies. The lead plaintiff, Lucianna Borrego, worked for Raley’s in Ukiah, California. Kirsten Kelly, the second named plaintiff, worked at a Bel Air market in the Sacramento region. Both plaintiffs claimed they were placed on leave when they sought accommodations relating to their pregnancies.
Read more....
Jennifer Liu Named One of Top 75 Labor and Employment Lawyers in California by the Daily Journal
July 10, 2019
The Liu Law Firm, P.C. is proud to announce that Managing Partner Jennifer Liu has been named a Top Labor and Employment Lawyer for 2019 by the Daily Journal. The annual list recognizes 75 of California's top attorneys who have made significant contributions in labor and employment law.
"'My concern is that if employers continue to use arbitration agreements...how are we really going to eradicate discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace?'" Ms. Liu queried in her interview with the Daily Journal. "For now, Liu said arbitration isn't going to stop her from taking on meritorious cases," the article added.
Read more....
July 10, 2019
The Liu Law Firm, P.C. is proud to announce that Managing Partner Jennifer Liu has been named a Top Labor and Employment Lawyer for 2019 by the Daily Journal. The annual list recognizes 75 of California's top attorneys who have made significant contributions in labor and employment law.
"'My concern is that if employers continue to use arbitration agreements...how are we really going to eradicate discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace?'" Ms. Liu queried in her interview with the Daily Journal. "For now, Liu said arbitration isn't going to stop her from taking on meritorious cases," the article added.
Read more....
Jennifer Liu and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher Named Rising Stars By Super Lawyers Northern California
June 26, 2019
Managing Partner Jennifer Liu and Partner Rebecca Peterson-Fisher have been named Rising Stars for 2019 by Super Lawyers Northern California. The Rising Stars designation recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state, and attorneys must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less.
This is Ms. Liu's third consecutive year of recognition as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Northern California. Ms. Peterson-Fisher is being recognized as a Rising Star for the fourth time (2015 and 2016 in Southern California, 2018 and 2019 in Northern California).
Congratulations to Jen and Becky!
June 26, 2019
Managing Partner Jennifer Liu and Partner Rebecca Peterson-Fisher have been named Rising Stars for 2019 by Super Lawyers Northern California. The Rising Stars designation recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state, and attorneys must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less.
This is Ms. Liu's third consecutive year of recognition as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Northern California. Ms. Peterson-Fisher is being recognized as a Rising Star for the fourth time (2015 and 2016 in Southern California, 2018 and 2019 in Northern California).
Congratulations to Jen and Becky!