What's so important about this "maternal discrimination case," as described by Mary Still, program director for the Program on WorkLife Law at American University Washington College of Law, is that the appeals court has ruled that "employers who assume that mothers of young children aren't committed to their jobs are discriminating."

Elana Back, a school psychologist in New York, is the plaintiff. She says she was denied tenure — despite having "high" performance reviews both before and after having children. She claims that her bosses questioned her "ability to do her job and be a mother."

One, she alleges, even told her that she "did not know how she could perform her job with little ones."

Such accusations are old. But winning the right to be heard on the subject is fairly new. And it has a new name. Joan Williams, a law professor and also a director of the Program on WorkLife Law, calls it "caregiver discrimination."

It could be worse: Patricia James, who is retired and lives in Portland, Ore., says she has "a great deal of sympathy for most working mothers."

But as challenging as it is today to take care of kids and earn a living, James, who has worked in a variety of jobs in banking, says she really had it tough as a single working parent half a century ago.

"In 1954, I was a widow with three children to support," said James, 78. "My husband died at age 31, and there were no child-care facilities in those days. When I was hired for my first job, I had to sign a statement that under no circumstances would I take time off due to the illness of my children. If I did, I would be subject to immediate dismissal."

And what happened?

"Naturally, the children got all the diseases common to them, and I had to hire a registered nurse to care for them — one at a time," remembered James. "I was not permitted to call home to check on them, and they could not call me."

Before she was widowed, James, like many other women of her time, "had never driven, written a check or made a family decision. ... But I was determined to do it myself."

And she did.

And the good news is: A recent study of 163 human-resources professionals who specialize in work/life balance shows that employers are adding benefits in that area for the first time in two years.

The survey, conducted by the Alliance for Work-Life Progress in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Work/Life Today, a newsletter published in College Park, Md., suggests that "while companies still employ fewer work/life professionals and offer fewer work/life benefits than they did during better economic times, many are beginning to replace the ones they cut."

The best news: More companies are offering paid family, maternity and paternity leave.

"Work/life is keeping pace with the economy as it emerges from the recession," said Sharon O'Malley, publisher of the newsletter.

And the bad news is: Although many companies have policies (for flexible hours) on the books, "the reality is that it all comes down to the office culture and the direct supervisor," according to Mary W. Quigley and Loretta E. Kaufman, authors of "Going Back to Work: A Survival Guide for Comeback Moms" (Career, $13.95).