Regulators Examining Insurers’ Cyber Security Readiness
Immigrant Driver’s Licenses Signed in Colorado
E&O Insights: Why Personal Umbrellas Generate Claims
10 Things to Know About Entertainment, Sports & Special Events
Washington Public Employee Fired Over Fruit Pie Suing City
4 Strategies to Make Producer Lifecycle Management a Priority
Motorcycle Injuries Rise After Helmet Laws Weakened: Study
Making the Most of Mediation, Part 2Free Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
Kalifornia–where a Federal judge is a hero when his crummy decisions are turned over.
This article doesn’t give any details of what happened. It’s hard to know if it was a good decision or bad based on this article.
I read a couple additional articles and I have to agree with the appeals court. It appears the applicant did not disclose her pregnancy until after she was offered the job. I think this shows a lack of character (and honesty) on the applicant’s part. I’ve hired a pregnant woman before, but she told me in the interview she was pregnant. Why would you want to hire someone who has no problem concealing information? (I’m a mother of three, btw)