Sep 182014
 
 September 18, 2014  Business, Court, U.S., Workplace

Elizabeth Warmerdam has an update on one of the yuckiest workplace privacy cases I’ve ever covered on this blog.

Accused of checking the underwear of female employees for period blood, a cosmetics company cannot demand coverage from its insurer, a California Court of Appeals ruled.

[…]

Jon Davler tendered the action to its insurer, but Arch Insurance Co. denied coverage based on an employment-related practices exclusion in the policy.

A three-judge panel with 2nd Appellate District affirmed Monday that the insurance company that it does not owe coverage to the company, despite Jon Davler’s argument that the false imprisonment claim is not employment-related.

Read more on Courthouse News.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.