Rochelle Saks v. Franklin Covey Co. And Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an employer’s denial of insurance coverage for, inter alia, IVF did not constitute unlawful sex discrimination because infertility affects both sexes
• stating that Title VII protects women who are pregnant, have given birth, or have related medical conditions from discrimination
• holding that Title VII applies to pregnancy discrimination cases
• defining affirmative defense as “defendant’s assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are true” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[i]n [International Longshoremen’s Assn. v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380, 106 S. Ct. 1904, 90 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1986
• “Because male and female employees . . . are equally disadvantaged by the [policy], we conclude that the Plan does not discriminate on the basis of [gender].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).