|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Article Index » california: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link California Supreme Court: No Class Action Requirements for Private Attorneys General Act Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 01, 2009 The California Supreme Court has allowed an employee to proceed with his claim to recover penalties on behalf of himself and non-party employees under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) without satisfying class certification requirements. Arias v. Superior Court, No. S155965 (June 29, 2009). However, the Court ruled that the plaintiff cannot bring claims in a representative capacity under California’s unfair competition law without meeting class certification requirements. Report Link Defending Wage Claims Before the California Labor Commissioner.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - July 01, 2009 Most employers doing business in California are familiar with wage claims brought by current or former employees before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), which is the state agency charged with enforcing the California Labor Code and the state's wage-hour laws and regulations. This article highlights the rules and procedures in defending a wage claim in California. Report Link California Supreme Court Refuses to Say Whether Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives are Exempt.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 29, 2009 In connection with its review of a federal district court decision in D'Este v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified two important questions to the Supreme Court of California, the answers to which could resolve several pending putative wage-hour class actions against pharmaceutical companies involving the exempt classification of their sales representatives. However, on June 10, 2009, the Supreme Court of California summarily denied the Ninth Circuit's request: Report Link California: Intentional Discrimination not Required for State Disability Discrimination Claim.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 23, 2009 The California Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff seeking damages under the state Unruh Civil Rights Act for a violation of the public accommodation provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act need not prove that the discrimination was intentional. Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., No. S162818 (Cal. June 11, 2009). The state Supreme Court decision resulted from a question certified from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Report Link STARBUCKS ESCAPES $100M TIP POOLING RULING.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 19, 2009 Earlier this year, a San Diego trial court issued a $100 million verdict against Starbucks Corporation in a controversial class action involving how Starbucks distributes tip jar monies. About 10 days ago, a California Court of Appeal reversed that ruling. In doing so, the court clarified one of the important rules that hospitality industry employers must follow when devising any tip sharing arrangements. Report Link Only Class Representatives, Not Class Members, Must Have Standing to Sue under California UCL.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 19, 2009 In a case with employment class action litigation implications, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the standing requirements for fraudulent business practices class action claims under the California Unfair Competition Law apply only to the representative plaintiffs, not to all class members. Report Link “ME TOO” EVIDENCE IN DISCRIMINATION CASES.Shaw Valenza LLP - June 19, 2009 The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties may change the way courts rule on evidence in discrimination cases. The court found admissible as proof of discrimination other employees’ testimony about discrimination against them. Such “me too” evidence therefore may be admissible to bootstrap the plaintiff’s own claim. Report Link AT WILL AT WORK.Shaw Valenza LLP - June 19, 2009 In California, Labor Code Section 2922 recognizes employees and employers presumptively may end their relationship "at will." Now and then, someone writes an article or introduces legislation proposing the end of employment at will. The advocates have their reasons (e.g., at-will employment is anachronistic, meaningless because of the numerous exceptions, unfair etc.). They are wrong. At-will employment remains a legally significant principle, even with the many exceptions the courts and legislature have applied to it. Report Link PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S LABOR CODE.Shaw Valenza LLP - June 19, 2009 An on-going debate regarding whether certain provisions of California’s Labor Code apply to public entities may be a bit closer to resolution. The Labor Code clearly applies to private employers. In some areas, however, it is silent as to its application to public employers. Fortunately, the California Court of Appeal recently shed some light on this issue. In Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, the Court held that California’s Labor Code provisions governing daily overtime, meal periods, and payment of wages upon separation of employment do not apply to water storage districts. Report Link California Court of Appeal Rules Employment Contract Barred Recovery of Post-Termination Commissions.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 15, 2009 Affirming summary judgment in favor of an employer, the California Court of Appeal has held that the plain language of an employment agreement barred a salesperson’s recovery of commissions following his termination of employment. Nein v. HostPro, Inc., No. B199497 (Cal. Ct. App. June 4, 2009). The Court also held that the agreement precluded the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for state Labor Code violations for failing to pay wages, and for violations of the state Unfair Competition Law.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 10NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Immigration Law Issues in the Hospitality Industry: Unique Visa Options & Compliance Challenges
Online
July 8, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsImmigration Law Issues in the Hospitality Industry: Unique Visa Options & Compliance ChallengesOnline
July 8, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsWEBINAR—Healthcare: Preparing for the Impact of the Employee Free Choice ActWebinar
July 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerChicago Office Breakfast SeriesChicago
July 09, 2009 Jackson LewisThe Impact of the Lilly Ledbetter "Fair Pay" Act of 2009Free Webinar
July 9, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyLong Beach
July 9, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsConnecticut Sexual And Other Harassment Education And Training in the WorkplaceHartford
July 14, 2009 Jackson LewisChicago Office Breakfast SeriesNorthbrook
July 14, 2009 Jackson LewisThe Midwest Wage & Hour WarWebinar
July 14, 2009 LittlerFacebook, Twitter, and Other Social Networking Sites – Do's and Don'ts in the WorkplaceNewport Beach
July 14, 2009 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
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