|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Article Index » washington: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link No Cause of Action against Employers under Medical Marijuana Law, Washington Court Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 02, 2009 Affirming summary judgment in favor of the employer, the Washington Court of Appeals has held that there was no implied cause of action arising from the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act (“MUMA”) against an employer who refused to hire a prospective employee who failed a pre-employment drug test allegedly due to her medical use of marijuana. Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colorado), LLC, No. 38531-7-II (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). The Court further held that the employer did not wrongfully terminate the employee’s employment in violation of Washington’s public policy. Report Link Washington Appeals Court Holds Corporate Officers Liable for Unpaid Wages and Double Damages.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 23, 2009 The Washington State Court of Appeals has upheld a judgment for willful withholding of wages that was entered against both the employer corporation and two of its corporate officers. The Court rejected the officers’ arguments that insufficient funds, the corporate veil and the business judgment rules shielded the officers from personal liability for amounts undisputedly owed. Durand v. HIMC Corp., No. 37088-3-II (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009). The Court also affirmed the trial court’s rulings holding that the corporate employer breached its employment contract with the plaintiff as to disputed amounts for severance, a relocation payment, and a year-end bonus. Report Link Washington Court Strikes Cost-Shifting and Onerous Forum Selection in Employee Arbitration Agreement.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 14, 2009 Enforcing a modified arbitration agreement and requiring arbitration of an employee’s claims for unpaid overtime, the Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision in an arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The Court struck the attorneys’ fee provision because it conflicted with Washington’s wage payment statute, which provides attorneys’ fees for prevailing employees only, and because it operated as a deterrent to litigation of wage claims. Walters v. A.A.A. Waterproofing, Inc. The Court further ruled that a provision requiring arbitration in another state was unconscionable as applied to the employee because he could not afford the associated costs. However, the Court severed the unconscionable provisions and enforced the agreement, as modified. Report Link Washington Supreme Court Holds CEO and CFO Personally Liable for Unpaid Wages.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 23, 2009 The Washington State Supreme Court has held an employer’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer personally liable for willfully failing to pay wages in violation of state law (RCW 49.52.070). Expanding prior law, the Court further held that these officers could not use the employer’s bankruptcy as a defense against personal liability. Accordingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a class of employees who sued the officers to recover their unpaid wages plus double damages and their attorneys’ fees and costs. Report Link Washington State Labor Retaliation Claim Preempted by National Labor Relations Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 26, 2009 A Washington federal trial court has dismissed an employee’s state law retaliation claim, holding that it was preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act. Cope v. WinCo Foods, LLC, No. CV-07-5064-FVS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21948 (E.D. Wash., Mar. 2, 2009). The employee brought his claim under a Washington statute which protects an employee’s right to engage in “concerted activity” without employer interference. The court held that the claim was preempted because, through passage of the NLRA, Congress actually protected the same activity as the state statute (Garmon preemption doctrine). Accordingly, the claim was dismissed. Report Link Legislation Limiting Employers' Right to Communicate with Employees Introduced in Washington State.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 23, 2009 Sponsored by 46 Representatives, a union-supported bill entitled, “Prohibiting certain employer communications about political or religious matters,” has been introduced in the House of Representatives of the Washington State Legislature. The bill (H.B. 1528), presented on January 22, seeks to bar all Washington employers, not just those who receive state funding, from talking to their employees about matters related to labor unions in required meetings. Report Link Ninth Circuit Asks Washington Supreme Court to Determine Constitutionality of Disability Legislation.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 21, 2008 A federal appeals court has asked Washington State’s highest court to determine whether applying legislation retroactively that intentionally overturns existing caselaw by expanding the definition of “disability” under the state’s anti-discrimination law violates the separation of powers doctrine in the state constitution. Report Link Washington State Minimum Wage Going to $8.55 in 2009.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 10, 2008 Washington's minimum wage will increase to $8.55 an hour effective January 1, 2009, an increase of 48 cents over 2008. The state minimum wage applies to agricultural and non-agricultural jobs in Washington, including tipped employees, as Washington law does not recognize a tip credit. Report Link New Washington and Federal Military Leave Entitlements Create Unsettling Questions (pdf).Jackson Lewis LLP - July 15, 2008 Washington’s new Family Military Leave Act
took effect on June 12, 2008. This is the
second military-related leave act to become law in
2008. The first, a federal defense authorization bill
that amended the Family and Medical Leave Act
(“Servicemember FMLA”), became effective in late
January. Report Link High Court Alters Eligibility for Unemployment Insurance in Washington State.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 02, 2008 On June 19, 2008, the Washington Supreme Court relied on legislative history and the plain language of Washington's unemployment insurance law to hold in Spain v. Employment Security Department, No. 7987-8 (June 19, 2008), that the listing of specific reasons in RCW section 50.20.050(2)(b) for which an employee may voluntarily leave a position for "good cause" and still collect unemployment insurance benefits is not exclusive. As a result of court's decision in Spain, the door is now open for employees to generally argue that they are entitled to unemployment compensation because they left work voluntarily for "good cause," even if the reason they quit their job does not fall within one of the specific reasons enumerated in the statute.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 10NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds