Total Articles: 156
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 20, 2015
On July 17, 2015, a California appellate court affirmed the denial of an intellectual property attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion against his former employer. Terrence Wyles, the defendant and former in-house counsel for medical products company West Hills Research and Development, Inc. (“West Hills”), sought to dismiss his former employer’s trade secrets misappropriation case by asserting that its lawsuit interfered with his efforts to file a complaint against its senior officers for embezzlement. The defendant alleged that he retained copies of confidential company documents following the termination of his employment as evidence to support a shareholder derivative lawsuit he planned to file alleging that the company was engaging in financial misconduct. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion, finding that the alleged financial misconduct had nothing to do with the misappropriation of trade secrets underlying the company’s complaint.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 20, 2015
The California Legislature reconvened on Monday, August 17, to finish its work for the 2015 regular session, which must end by September 11.
Ogletree Deakins • August 19, 2015
On July 16, 2015, California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill amending the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), adding protections for workers who request accommodations for disabilities or religious beliefs.
Ogletree Deakins • August 18, 2015
In a recent unpublished case, the California Court of Appeal ruled a public civil service commission decision on a worker’s employment claims precluded him from relitigating his claims in a civil action. According to the state appellate court, the suit brought by a discharged worker who filed claims against his public employer was barred. Glover v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B257114 (May 21, 2015).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 11, 2015
California's Secretary of State recently clarified whether an employer may use a notary public as its authorized representative to complete the Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 30, 2015
Jackson Lewis Shareholder Punam Sarad will serve as a panelist at the Bay Area Employer 411: What You Need to Know About the New Laws on Equal Pay, Fair Scheduling and Slavery-Free Supply Chains Conference hosted by the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women, Department of Labor/Women’s Bureau, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and American Association of University Women/San Francisco Branch. The panel will be followed by a roundtable discussion about the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance and Retail Workers Bill of Rights.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • July 17, 2015
This week, California’s Governor signed into law urgency legislation passed by the legislature (AB 304) to amend California’s recently enacted paid sick leave law. These amendments take effect immediately and are intended to clarify some areas of ambiguity in the law as originally enacted. While the amendments do provide clarification in some areas, they nonetheless create added confusion and burden for employers that have already adopted or modified paid time off policies to take effect July 1, 2015, based on their best interpretations of the paid sick leave law in its originally enacted form. The amendments also leave a number of ambiguities in the original law unanswered. Click on the link to read the full summary of the amendments.
Shaw Valenza LLP • July 16, 2015
When an employee wins a wrongful termination lawsuit, or settles a case, part or all of the recovery usually will be compensation for lost wages. After a verdict, though, the court enters a judgment. Usually interest accrues from the date of the judgment, and continues to accrue unless the judgment is "satisfied." Additionally, employees may enforce the judgment with collection proceedings.
Ogletree Deakins • July 02, 2015
The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, which Governor Jerry Brown signed on September 10, 2014, goes into effect today, July 1, 2015. The Act requires California employers to provide employees with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Below is a round-up of some helpful articles covering all the details of the Act, including employers’ obligations and the latest developments on the new law.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • June 18, 2015
The recent published decision issued by the Fourth District California Court of Appeal (May 28) in Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P. will make it more difficult for out-of-state employers to enforce forum selection and choice-of-law clauses in litigation with their California employees. The defendant, Alliantgroup, is a tax consulting firm headquartered in Texas, with one of its eleven regional offices in California. The plaintiff, Rachel Verdugo, brought a class action against the company on behalf of past and present employees, alleging various hour and wage claims under the California Labor Code. Upon being hired to work at Alliantgroup’s Irvine office, Verdugo signed an employment agreement that included a forum selection clause stating that Harris County, Texas would be the exclusive forum for disputes arising out of the agreement. The employment agreement also included a choice-of-law clause, designating Texas law as governing any arising disputes.
California courts have traditionally held that they will not defer to a selected forum if doing so would violate public policy by diminishing the rights of California residents. Furthermore, the courts have established that if the claims at issue are based on rights that California statutes have deemed “unwaivable,” the party seeking to enforce the forum selection clause bears the burden of showing that enforcement will not diminish the substantive rights afforded under California law in any way. In making certain rights “unwaivable,” the California legislature and courts are primarily concerned with providing California residents with all of the protections they are entitled to under California law. In Verdugo, the court ruled that California Labor Code rights are unwaivable. In applying this rule, and the applicable precedent, the Court of Appeal held that defendant Alliantgroup could not enforce the forum selection clause or the choice-of-law provision in the agreement because it failed to show that the forum selection and choice-of-law clauses would not diminish plaintiff Verdugo’s statutory rights by requiring her to litigate her claims in Texas and under Texas law. The court did not create a specific test for determining whether deferring to a forum selection clause will diminish an employee’s rights under the Labor Code.
Although it does not make forum selection and choice of law clauses per se unenforceable, the holding in this case is significant because it places the burden on the employer to show that application of the forum and/or choice of law clause will not diminish the employee's rights.
FordHarrison LLP • June 11, 2015
Executive Summary: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently broadened California's already expansive interest in promoting employee mobility by voiding any contract provision imposing a meaningful obstacle to a California resident's ability to work. The appellate court's decision calls into question the continued validity of post-employment restrictive covenants commonly included in severance packages and settlement agreements.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 28, 2015
The end of the first week of June is the deadline for California bills to pass out of their house of origin. The following are significant bills affecting private-sector employers in the Golden State that have advanced to date:
Ogletree Deakins • May 26, 2015
On April 21, 2015, California’s legislature advanced a bill that would require professional sports teams based in California to classify their cheerleaders as employees and pay them a minimum wage. The state assembly’s Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media voted 5-to-2 in favor of the bill, which must now pass a vote by the Appropriations Committee before it can be reintroduced to the legislature.
FordHarrison LLP • May 19, 2015
Executive Summary: A new California appellate court decision provides much needed guidance regarding the proper scope of discovery in representative actions brought under the California Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code sections 2698, et seq. Specifically, the opinion now allows lower courts to take an incremental approach to discovery, requiring the named plaintiff to demonstrate that s/he was actually subjected to wage and hour violations – and after that, subjected to uniform employment policies and practices – before authorizing statewide discovery. The opinion is the first published California decision concerning how courts should approach discovery in PAGA actions.
Shaw Valenza LLP • May 18, 2015
The plaintiff in a "representative action" asserted under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claimed Marshall's (the retailer) denied him meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, etc. That's when you are making an individual claim for your own damages, but will try to recover PAGA-authorized penalties on behalf of others whom you prove were wronged.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • May 12, 2015
There are a number of employment-related bills pending before the California legislature this session. While it is too early to tell which of these bills ultimately will be passed and signed into law, California employers may wish to follow the progress of some of these bills and/or to submit comments, opposition, or support (for the most part, unlikely) for a particular bill.
California continues to lead the way in expanding the rights of employees and obligations of employers in the workplace in many areas. This should come as no surprise to employers and HR since the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) extends protections to almost 20 protected classes and California provides employees with more than one dozen types of leave.
FordHarrison LLP • April 24, 2015
Executive Summary: Recently, a number of large retail and manufacturing companies doing business in California may have been surprised to receive a letter from the California Attorney General asking them to demonstrate compliance with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act. The Act was enacted in 2010 and became effective in 2012; however, the recent round of letters sent out by the California Attorney General has focused more attention on the Act. Recipients of the letters have 30 days to respond by providing a link to their disclosure or providing information showing they are not covered by the Act.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 16, 2015
Many employers have struggled with the issue of disciplining an employee for misconduct while he or she is on a leave of absence under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and federal Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Employers legitimately fear that the employee will claim that the discipline was taken because of the legally protected leave. In Richey v. AutoNation, the California Supreme Court provided some reassurance to employers who terminate employees on leave based on well-documented evidence of policy violations.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • March 11, 2015
In addition to having to comply with the new statewide paid sick leave law, California employers with employees in Oakland need to ensure that they are complying with a new Oakland minimum wage and paid sick leave measure that took effect March 2, 2015.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 02, 2015
Employers increasingly rely on electronic acknowledgements of policies and procedures. An "electronic signature" is valid under California law. But the reason those signatures exist is so that employers can prove the employee read and signed the document. That's what Moss Bros. Auto found out in a recent case.
Ogletree Deakins • March 02, 2015
California Court Rules on Whether to Compel Arbitration Where Employer Could Not Authenticate Employee’s Electronic Signature; House Painter With Vertigo and Restriction to Work “at Ground Level” Loses FEHA Case;
Worker’s Failure to Perform His Job Duties Satisfactorily Dooms FEHA Retaliation Claim;Being on Call in California Does Not Impede on Rest Breaks;From the Blog: California Labor Commissioner Revises Sick Pay Notice Obligation.
Shaw Valenza LLP • January 26, 2015
Here are some recent significant California employment law developments I missed. Long post, but chock full of employment law goodness. Or something:
Ogletree Deakins • January 26, 2015
The Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) has been discussed by state and federal legislators for nearly 15 years, and has been the subject of substantial debate and interest. During that time, 26 states have introduced the HWB, or one modeled on it. No state has yet passed the bill (although Tennessee has passed a bill limited to public-sector employees), and several state legislatures have vetoed it.
Vedder Price • January 22, 2015
As in recent years, California remained a hotbed of legislative action in the labor and employment field. The legislature passed several new laws and amended many others in significant ways. With changes taking effect on January 1, 2015, unless otherwise stated below, employers are encouraged to review their policies and practices to ensure compliance. Below is a summary of many of the most notable changes coming in 2015:
Ogletree Deakins • January 19, 2015
So what’s it going to be for 2015? Get up and run three miles every morning? Finally pay off those credit cards? Learn to speak French? Before you finish the list of New Year’s resolutions, consider adding a few on the human resources front. Below are a few recommendations for HR leaders—the payoff will be much better than losing 10 pounds (again). Pick a few and knock them off early in the year, and call it a good start.
Shaw Valenza LLP • January 07, 2015
Beginning on July 1, 2015, California employers must provide paid sick leave to employees. The Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (AB 1522) applies to all employers, regardless of size. The law requires either one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked or three days of sick leave per year. Employees accrue sick leave upon hire, although they may be restricted from taking earned leave until they have completed 90 days of employment.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • January 06, 2015
Beginning January 1st, California law requires “client employers” to share certain compliance responsibility and liability with the companies that provide them with contract labor, such as staffing agencies. Client employers are defined as private employers with at least 25 employees that utilize at least six temporary workers from a staffing contractor, subject to limited exceptions.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • January 06, 2015
Beginning July 1, 2015, California employers, with limited exceptions, must grant every employee 24 hours or three paid sick days each year. Even employers who are already providing paid sick leave face potential liability for failing to comply with the new law’s accrual, notice and recordkeeping requirements. Employers should start preparing now for this regulatory challenge as this state-mandated benefit will likely be fertile ground for new wage and hour class actions.
Ogletree Deakins • December 31, 2014
Two California Appellate Decisions Expand the Scope of Tameny Claims Based on Whistleblower Laws; Ninth Circuit Defends Employer’s Discharge of Worker With a History of Intimidation and Threats; LA County Employee’s Retaliation Claim Fails but Disability Bias Claim Moves Forward; California Court Revisits Employer’s Duty to Reasonably Accommodate Disabled Employee Under FEHA; San Francisco Board of Supervisors Approves “Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights”
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 24, 2014
The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement compiled a booklet of new California employment laws, as well as some bills that did not make the cut.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 24, 2014
Per Labor Code 2810.5, employers must provide non-exempt workers with a Wage Theft Notice at the time of hire and after certain changes to wages and other covered matters.
Brody and Associates, LLC • December 22, 2014
We have reported on jurisdictions such as New York City and Connecticut passing sick leave laws. We can now add California to this growing list. The Golden State recently passed the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 requiring employers to provide sick leave to their employees.
Ogletree Deakins • December 02, 2014
The California Supreme Court has denied a petition to review Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, No. B247160 (August 12, 2014). As a result of the court’s decision, an appellate court ruling that found that employers must reimburse employees for the business use of personal cell phones in some circumstances will stand. Employers should consider taking measures accordingly to minimize the risk of class action litigation.
Ogletree Deakins • November 25, 2014
Who Decides the Issue of Class Arbitration? Ninth Circuit Dismisses Worker’s “‘Sweeping Conclusory Allegations’ of Unequal Treatment”; California Court Overturns Employee’s Jury Verdict in Reverse Discrimination Case; California’s New Sick Leave Landscape—Your Paid Leave Questions Answered; From the Blog: FAAAA Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Period Requirements.
Ogletree Deakins • October 31, 2014
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a number of bills that will impact the employer community. A brief summary of these new laws, along with links to the bills, can be found below.
Ogletree Deakins • October 29, 2014
The Southern District of California recently issued a favorable ruling for employers under both the False Claims Act and California’s retaliatory discharge provision codified at California Labor Code section 1102.5. The court not only rejected the relator’s claims, but it also resolved all issues in the employer’s favor on summary judgment.
Ogletree Deakins • October 20, 2014
San Diego’s hotly contested minimum wage ordinance has been put on ice until at least 2016. The City Council approved the ordinance in July and then later overrode the mayor’s veto. A petition drive by San Diego business leaders has now succeeded in forcing the issue to the ballot.
FordHarrison LLP • October 14, 2014
Executive Summary: California employers that hire temporary workers now share liability with staffing agencies for certain violations of the state's labor laws. On September 28, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1897, a controversial bill that significantly expands the scope of liability of employers that contract with staffing agencies. The full text of the bill is available on the California Legislature's website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1897.
Ogletree Deakins • October 13, 2014
Everyone remembers a bully in junior high school. She might have been the mean girl who told others not to be your friend, or the brute who inflicted his cruelty with wedgies and half nelsons. Sadly, some people never graduate from junior high—mentally, at least—and some of those miscreants are now employed in your workplace. What is an employer to do? California has an answer.
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 07, 2014
Here are some of the other employment laws that Governor Jerry Brown has signed, which will result in new obligations and liabilities in 2015.
Ogletree Deakins • October 02, 2014
Quit or Retired? It Makes No Difference When It Comes to Paying Final Wages in California; California Legislative Update: September 2014; Ninth Circuit Finds Police Officer with ADHD Not Disabled Under ADA; A Bird’s Eye View of the DFEH (Part 3): An Interview with Patti Perez on Reasonable Accommodations, the Interactive Process, and Companion Animals; California Court: Exceeding Break Times and Falsifying Time Records Is Grounds for Disqualification from Unemployment Benefits: From the California Blog: California Appellate Court Rules That California’s Prevailing Wage Laws Do Not Apply to Off-Site Fabrication.
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 01, 2014
The 2014 legislative session is over. But employers will be remembering this one for a long time. California Governor Jerry Brown signed a host of new laws at the end of the session. Many deal with narrow-cast and public sector-related funding issues, which I won't cover here. (You're welcome).
Ogletree Deakins • September 24, 2014
The efforts made by professional athletes seeking workers’ compensation benefits for injuries that they sustained on the playing field has resulted in a considerable amount of drama in the press. As a result, the California legislature has amended the state Workers’ Compensation Act to include coverage for some athletes. In-state athletes are covered. Out-of-state professional athletes may be covered if (a) the athlete played at least two years for a California sports team; or (b) played more than 20 percent of his or her career for a California sports team. While the situation is unlikely to arise for most healthcare providers or institutions, if a professional athlete seeks medical treatment, it may be wise to consider asking if the injury is work-related.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 15, 2014
The Governor has signed or is about to sign two more employment laws:
Franczek Radelet P.C • September 03, 2014
Over the holiday weekend, California became only the second state (after Connecticut, which began granting paid sick leave in 2012 and just passed more tweaks to it) to guarantee at least some annual paid sick leave for most full and part-time employees. Assuming Governor Brown signs the bill, California’s law would be the tenth in the nation at the state or local level that requires employers to provide paid sick leave. The bill, entitled the “Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act,” passed with hefty majorities in the Assembly and Senate, and Governor Brown has indicated that he plans to sign it. That total would match the ten states that have passed preemption laws that ban any locality from passing paid sick leave legislation.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 02, 2014
The Governor signed AB 1522, which confers upon most California employees paid sick leave. The law is somewhat similar to San Francisco's paid sick leave ordinance.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP • September 02, 2014
On Aug. 28, the California Supreme Court handed down an important decision addressing vicarious liability for franchisors in the employment context.
Ogletree Deakins • September 02, 2014
On Saturday, August 30, 2014, in the early morning hours and amid controversy among labor supporters, the California legislature passed a bill that provides workers with three paid sick days per year. Governor Brown enthusiastically endorsed the law’s passage and is expected to sign it very shortly. Assuming the governor signs the legislation, it will take effect on July 1, 2015.
Ogletree Deakins • August 29, 2014
California Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions; California Court Interprets Vague Language in Arbitration Agreement in Favor of Employee; California Legislative Update: August 2014; A Bird’s Eye View of the DFEH: An Interview with Patti Perez (Part 2); From the California Blog: Employer Required to Reimburse Employees for Personal Cell Phone Use Despite Unlimited Minutes Plans
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 20, 2014
Governor Jerry Brown signed a couple of wage-hour laws, which will take effect 1/1/15. Neither is earth-shattering, but affected employers take note:
Ogletree Deakins • August 19, 2014
The lazy days of summer are behind us this month as many children head back to school. Employers of parents with school-aged children should review California’s laws, which provide certain rights to employees to take time off from work to deal with school-related issues.
FordHarrison LLP • August 18, 2014
Executive Summary: A California Appeal Court has held that employees are only required to show that they were required to use their personal cell phone for work-related calls to be entitled to reimbursement under California Labor Code § 2802. In reaching this conclusion, the appeal court held that it does not matter whether the phone bill is paid by a third person or not paid at all. See Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service (Aug. 12, 2014).
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 15, 2014
The Court of Appeal made an unprecedented ruling regarding the employer's obligation to reimburse employees for business use of personal items; here, a cell phone.
Ogletree Deakins • July 31, 2014
Motor Carriers Face Uphill Battle After California Supreme Court Decision; A Bird’s-Eye View of the DFEH: An Interview with Patti Perez; Ninth Circuit Allows Deputies to Proceed with Sex Discrimination Suit; California Legislative Update: July 2014; California Family Rights Act Interference Claims Proceed; Court Endorses PTO Use for Exempt Employee Partial-Day Absences; San Diego City Council Approves Minimum Wage Increase and Sick Pay Ordinance; From the California Blog: Single Act of Disobedience Does Not Disqualify Employee From Unemployment Benefits, California High Court Rules.
Shaw Valenza LLP • July 24, 2014
There have been so many recent employment law decisions that I can't long-form blog them all. So, here's a quick roundup of three recent, significant rulings -
Ogletree Deakins • July 17, 2014
Rejecting a call to place a proposed minimum wage hike on the November ballot as a referendum item, on July 14 the San Diego City Council approved an ordinance raising the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour by 2017.
Ogletree Deakins • July 11, 2014
On July 7, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that will give small business owners additional time to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bill takes effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP • July 07, 2014
On June 10, 2014, Judge Rolf M. Treu of the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles issued an opinion in Vergara v. California, striking down provisions of the California Education Code as unconstitutional. The sections of the California Education Code in question concerned teacher tenure (the so-called “Permanent Employment Statute”), dismissal (the “Dismissal Statutes”) and layoffs (known as “Last-In-First-Out” (LIFO)). The court held that these statutes violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution because they prevent students from accessing their fundamental rights to equal education by adversely affecting the quality of the education they are afforded. The statutes were held to “cause the potential and/or unreasonable exposure of grossly ineffective teachers to all California students but with particular detriment to minority and/or low income students.” Vergara at 4.
Ogletree Deakins • June 24, 2014
Since the Golden State sometimes can be a bellwether for national trends, employers nationwide may want to keep an eye on what’s occurring in California regarding commuter benefits. Certain employers in the San Francisco Bay Area have less than six months to comply with a new law that requires them to provide commuter benefits to employees. The law is intended to help reduce air pollution and alleviate traffic congestion in the Bay Area by encouraging employees to take mass transit, vanpools, carpools, or bicycles, or to walk rather than drive alone to work.
Shaw Valenza LLP • June 16, 2014
Jerome Stenehjem sued his former employer, Akon, Inc., and Surya Sareen, Akon‘s president and chief executive officer, for defamation, among other causes of action.
Ogletree Deakins • May 01, 2014
California Court Finds Employers Can Seek Evaluation After Employee Returns From FMLA Leave; California Court Gives the Green Light for Arbitration of Wrongful Termination Suit; Contract That Shortens Time for Bringing Employment Claims Rejected by California Court.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 21, 2014
To combat high unemployment rates amongst individuals with criminal histories, in recent years many state and local government have enacted “Ban the Box” laws. These laws are so named because they generally prohibit employers from asking applicants about their criminal histories early in the hiring process—including by requiring applicants to check a box on an employment application indicating the existence of a criminal history. San Francisco recently enacted such a law, which tightly regulates employers.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 17, 2014
Susan White was an investigator for the LA County District Attorney. She makes a number of errors and acted erratically over the course of several months. She was making her co-workers nervous about her judgment. She was in a dangerous job, sometimes involving arrest warrants and the like. She had problems giving testimony at trials, resulting in a defense lawyer filing perjury charges against her.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 11, 2014
Contrary to what you may think, the California Legislature has not finished perfecting the laws governing the California workplace. But, they persevere.
Franczek Radelet P.C • April 04, 2014
The California Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that could impact the ability of undocumented workers to collect back wages or sue employers for discrimination in California, and may prove instructive in other courts that periodically have to tackle these issues. The case is Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (Case No. S196568), and the California Supreme Court will consider whether an employee’s use of false documentation (in this case, a Social Security number) to obtain employment precludes future actions by that employee for discrimination (disability discrimination here).
Ogletree Deakins • March 28, 2014
Robert v. Stanford University, H037514 (February 25, 2014): The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed an award of $100,000 in attorneys’ fees to a prevailing employer in a case in which a former employee brought a frivolous and unsubstantiated claim of discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Court of Appeal upheld the award, even though the trial court had not issued a separate written order regarding the attorneys’ fees, because the trial court had made express oral findings on the record and applied the appropriate standards.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 27, 2014
The California Immigrant Policy Center recently estimated that there are approximately 2.6 million undocumented immigrants working in California. Over the years, their advocates claim employers take advantage of their “illegal” status, e.g., by paying substandard wages. According to the National Employment Law Project, employers threaten to turn over these workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), after they try to organize a union or seek the benefits of wage and hour laws. Other acts can include (1) improperly conducting I-9 self-audits after employees filed workplace-based complaints, or in the midst of labor disputes or collective bargaining; (2) the misuse of the federal “E-Verify” system, which matches employees identification information against databases maintained by the Social Security Administration; (3) threatening to report employees’ family members immigration status to ICE; and (4) filing false reports to law enforcement causing review of employees’ immigration status.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 18, 2014
We wrote an article about the California wage orders' "suitable seating" requirement here.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 14, 2014
Perhaps you have read about the EEOC's recent lawsuits attacking severance agreements as allegedly containing illegal provisions, because they impede the EEOC's work. The EEOC is challenging everything from "cooperation clauses," to general releases that broadly preclude the releasing employee from bringing future claims. You know, in exchange for money. Here's an example of what the EEOC is doing.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 12, 2014
Suppose an employee complains of sexual harassment by a supervisor. The supervisor admits that sexually inappropriate conduct took place, but claims the complainant was the instigator. Neither the employee nor the supervisor offers other witnesses who might shed light on what really occurred. What do you do?
Ogletree Deakins • March 03, 2014
San Francisco Mayor Signs Ordinance to “Ban the Box” on Employment Applications and more....
Shaw Valenza LLP • January 28, 2014
All employers will be faced at some point with ending an unsuccessful employment relationship. California is an “at-will” state, so an employer may terminate an employee for any reason except an illegal one (for example, because of an employee’s race or gender). Sound simple? Not so fast. The numerous legal restrictions surrounding the termination process give employers pause even when making legitimate personnel decisions. Of course, a hasty personnel decision can cost an employer far too much—in legal fees, management time, damaged client relations, and negative employee morale. To reduce the legal risk associated with terminations, employers should keep a few key concepts in mind.
Ogletree Deakins • January 23, 2014
With the start of the new year, it is the perfect time for employers to ensure that their policies reflect the changes in California law. We covered many of the laws affecting employers in our “California Legislative Update 2013” article and in my three-part blog series, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond.” Part one of the series covered recent wage and hour legislation; part two covered EEO, disability, and leave legislation; and part three covered immigration-related legislation.
Shaw Valenza LLP • January 15, 2014
We previously wrote about protecting employee privacy when responding to subpoenas for personnel records. (See “Employee Privacy: Responding to Subpoenas,” September 27, 2013.) This article addresses the related topic of employee medical privacy during litigation and the discovery process. Even if your company is not currently involved in litigation, it is essential to understand the privacy issues that may affect the organization’s defenses down the road.
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP • December 20, 2013
As usual, the California legislature has been busy. The following is a summary of new employment-related laws that will take effect in the new year. Unless otherwise stated, the effective dates are January 1, 2014.
Vedder Price • December 17, 2013
California has one of the most proactive legislatures in the nation with respect to labor and employment matters. The coming year will bring several significant changes, new laws and obligations of which businesses with California operations should be aware. We hope you find the below summary informative and look forward to working with you to ensure compliance as you move into 2014.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 17, 2013
Must. Igor Palagin was a welder. He filed a labor commissioner claim for underpayment against Paniagua Construction. Paniagua claimed Palagin was not its employee; rather, he was a subcontractor. The DLSE found in favor of Palagin.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 16, 2013
Several new laws taking effect in 2014 will significantly change the practices of California employers. This article summarizes them and includes tips on how to comply. The bills become law on January 1, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 16, 2013
This article is Part 2 of a two-part series providing an overview of new federal and California employment laws.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 06, 2013
Our friends at the California Chamber of Commerce posted this long list of new, California employment laws that will take effect in 2014. You can review the list here. The list also includes the San Francisco ordinance allowing requests for flexible schedules.
Ogletree Deakins • November 06, 2013
The final post in this three-part series on the newly-signed legislation in California covers the three immigration-related bills that Governor Brown recently signed. I also discuss two significant bills that the governor vetoed.
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 28, 2013
Childs was a senior engineer for the City and County of San Francisco. Via a series of events, he assumed significant control over a major part of the city's IT infrastructure, against the wishes of management. I'm oversimplifying here. The opinion contains all the gory IT details, and there are many.
Ogletree Deakins • October 28, 2013
Governor Jerry Brown recently signed bills enacting several new employment statutes, marking the end of the California Legislature’s 2013 regular session. A brief summary of these new laws, along with links to the bills, can be found below.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 30, 2013
California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law two more employment law-related bills.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 09, 2013
Several years ago, a radio station conducted a contest that involved consuming water. The one who "held it in" the longest would win a prize. Unfortunately, one contestant died from drinking too much.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 09, 2013
Jessica Chang sued her former employer and an individual named Howard Cho for sexual harassment. Cho counter-sued Chang for IIED and defamation.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 09, 2013
Many employers believe that “assistive animals” are limited to service dogs for the visually or hearing impaired. What if an employee wants to bring a chinchilla, snake, or ferret to work for “emotional support?” Under state and federal regulations, employers may have to allow these and other animals in the workplace as a “reasonable accommodation” for disabled employees.
Ogletree Deakins • September 09, 2013
California Governor Jerry Brown on August 28, 2013, signed into law a measure limiting the ability of employers to obtain attorneys’ fee awards if they are prevailing defendants in wage disputes.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 26, 2013
This article is the first installment of a two-part article in which we summarize recent California Supreme Court decisions in employment law.
The California Supreme Court issued several employment law-related decisions during the past year, all of which may affect California employers.
Ogletree Deakins • August 05, 2013
California Supreme Court Action in Piece-Rate Pay Case Causes Concerns About Alternative Pay Systems; Restricting the Activities of California On-Call Employees May Mean Having to Pay Them for Their Time; California Agencies Don’t Get Two Bites at the Apple When It Comes to Misclassification.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • July 02, 2013
Appellate Court Attacks Piece-Rate Compensation – Again;Court Clarifies Impact Of Multi-Tasking On Exempt Status.
Ogletree Deakins • June 24, 2013
No Administrative Exemption Under California Law Where Worker Did Not Receive Fixed Salary
California Employer’s Policy of On-Duty Meal Periods Will Be Litigated as a Class Action
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Saves California Employer’s Arbitration Agreement
FordHarrison LLP • June 19, 2013
In response to our June 6, 2013 Restaurant Industry Newsletter, we received several questions about whether California's human trafficking statute applies to all restaurants and drinking establishments. As a result, we are providing the following answers as a guide to help you determine whether you must comply with the statute.
FordHarrison LLP • June 04, 2013
Executive Summary: The California Legislature has enacted a new law that requires certain businesses in the hospitality, transportation, and healthcare industries to post public notices regarding slavery and human trafficking or face stiff penalties. This new law became effective on April 1, 2013 and is the latest in California's efforts to combat this unlawful multi-million dollar industry.
Shaw Valenza LLP • June 03, 2013
The California Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion addressed employees' privacy rights in the public sector union context. The decision has implications for non-union, private sector employers as well, so read on.
Ogletree Deakins • April 30, 2013
California Piece-Rate Employees Entitled to Compensation for Each Hour Worked; One-Sided Arbitration Agreement Found Unconscionable by California Court; Suitable Seating Class Action Cases Are on the Rise in California; California Court Rejects Managers’ Overtime Misclassification Class Action.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 08, 2013
Here are a few of the cases I should have mentioned;.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 01, 2013
"Me too" evidence is when the plaintiff attempts to prove discrimination against him or her by offering evidence that others suffered similar discrimination. The courts admit this evidence as proof of intent or motive, where it otherwise would be excluded as "character" evidence.
Ogletree Deakins • March 11, 2013
California Appellate Court Holds Employee Entitled to Reasonable Accommodation After Pregnancy Leave Ends; Court Rejects FEHA Claim Brought by Fired Department Manager; California Employer Should Have Engaged in Interactive Process Before Firing Employee; Tip Pooling Policy Held Lawful by California Court—So Long As Recipients Are Not Management Level.
Shaw Valenza LLP • February 25, 2013
The California Supreme Court is taking up several cases for review that will have significant effects on California employment law. Once the Supreme Court grants review, the lower court opinion is not precedent and cannot be cited in briefs or relied upon unless the Court says otherwise.
Shaw Valenza LLP • February 08, 2013
Employers periodically must comply with certain obligations imposed by law. These requirements arise annually or at other intervals, and are separate from those that arise when the employer hires or discharges employees. The following are some of the obligations employers should ensure are on their calendars for annual review.
Shaw Valenza LLP • February 04, 2013
A message from the California Department of Industrial Relations (online here):
Shaw Valenza LLP • January 28, 2013
Applied Signal fired John McGrory. One of his reports, Dana Thomas, complained to human resources that McGrory harassed / discriminated against her because of her sex / sexual orientation. Applied hired an outside investigator. McGrory did not like the investigator, but she exonerated him of mistreating Thomas. She did find, though, that McGrory was untruthful and uncooperative during the investigation. She also found that McGrory violated the company's anti-harassment policy because he made off-color jokes related to sex and national origin.
FordHarrison LLP • December 28, 2012
Executive Summary: After the Mayans failed to predict the end of the world on December 21, 2012, it became apparent that California employers would have to comply with a string of new laws that take effect on January 1, 2013. Here is a summary of seven new employment laws to be aware of so you can revise your employment policies accordingly.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 21, 2012
EITC? Huh? The California Legislature requires employers to give annual notices to all employees of their right to claim an Earned Income Tax Credit. Information and sample notices
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 12, 2012
The court of appeal in Veronese v. Lucasfilm issued a highly significant ruling that will bring some balance to jury instructions in discrimination cases.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 29, 2012
New federal and California laws affecting California employers will take effect on January 1, 2013. Employers should begin preparing for changes to their policies and practices in advance of the new year.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 29, 2012
This article is Part 2 of a two-part series regarding new federal and California employment laws.
Ogletree Deakins • November 15, 2012
California Appellate Court Allows Time Clock Rounding
No Implied-in-Fact Arbitration Agreement Where Employee Had No Intention of Signing
Court of Appeal Relies on “Motivating Factor” as Standard of Causation in FEHA Case
California Court Affirms that Customer Lists Can Qualify as Trade Secrets
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 05, 2012
Our friends at the California Chamber of Commerce sent out this list of new California employment laws taking effect in 2013 (here). These new statutes are only part of the story though, as the California courts are busy issuing rulings that shape California employment laws. Let's not forget the federal agencies and courts doing their part as well.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • October 02, 2012
On September 27, 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1844, which prohibits employers from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to: (1) disclose a username or password for personal social media, (2) access their accounts in the presence of employers, or (3) divulge any personal social media. It also makes it illegal to discipline or retaliate against an employee or applicant for not complying with a request or demand for access to personal social media.
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP • October 01, 2012
Last week was a busy one at the Governor's office, where Governor Jerry Brown signed into law no less than three new laws with a pro-labor, pro-employee theme. The first two laws were a package deal, making California is the first State to enact legislation that prohibits employers and educators from requesting employees' and students' social-networking passwords. Gov. Brown announced that he'd signed the twin bills into law via a Twitter post on Thursday.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 06, 2012
This article is Part 2 of a two-part series regarding recent California Supreme Court decisions in employment law.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 24, 2012
This article is Part 1 of a two-part series providing an overview of recent California Supreme Court decisions in employment law. Part 2 of this article will be featured soon.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 20, 2012
A jury deadlocked on whether Touchstone wrongfully terminated Sheridan in violation of public policy (retaliation for her complaint she was battered). The trial court repeatedly rejected Touchstone's argument that non-renewal of annual contracts do not give rise to wrongful termination claims.
Shaw Valenza LLP • June 04, 2012
Robert Rogers is a former officer of Summit Bank, a local, Oakland bank. When Summit learned there were a number of anonymous, negative posts about it on Craigslist, it decided to sue Rogers for defamation. Here are some of his posts, according to the court
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP • December 20, 2011
A lot is going on here in the Golden State. Governor Jerry Brown was reelected to a third term (after a hiatus of almost 30 years since the end of his second term), and since that time, California employers have been on edge wondering what type of anti-business measures he would sign into law. Although several bills that businesses feared either did not pass or were vetoed, the governor has signed into law a number of measures that should give employers concern.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 14, 2011
Much of the legislation passed in 2011 goes into effect on January 1, 2012. Employers should update their employee handbooks or other policies to reflect these legislative and other changes. Here are some of the most significant changes facing California employers.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 21, 2011
Recently, Governor Brown signed into law a few key bills that mark significant changes for California employers. Employers should prepare now to comply with these new laws (most of which become effective January 1, 2012) and adjust their practices accordingly. Full texts of each of these laws can be found at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/homeTemplate.xhtml.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • October 28, 2011
During Arnold Schwarzenegger's tenure as governor of California few new employment laws were enacted. This has changed under Gov. Jerry Brown. As the first year of his term concludes he has signed into law several bills that will affect California employers on January 1, 2012. From consumer credit reports to health care benefits, leaves of absence, and new wage and hour requirements, every California employer has something to prepare for in 2012.
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 17, 2011
Nicholas Laboratories, LLC sued its former employee, Chen. Ultimately, the parties resolved the case. Chen sought reimbursement of his fees under Labor Code Section 2802.
Ogletree Deakins • October 17, 2011
Below are brief explanations of these new laws that affect private employers along with links to the actual bill language. Each of these bills will become effective January 1, 2012. Ogletree Deakins is sponsoring seminars in Los Angeles (October 18), Orange County (October 19) and San Francisco (October 20) where attorneys will discuss these new legislative updates in more detail. On December 7, the firm also will conduct a webinar on the new California laws. For more information or to register for the webinar, contact Moira Cue at (310) 217-8191 (ext. 221).
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 11, 2011
In my last post, I said that Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bunch of ill-conceived laws. Well, I posted too soon, and I take that back.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 15, 2011
Vicente Salas worked for Sierra Chemical Company. He was seasonal, and was repeatedly laid off and re-hired. Along the way, he injured himself. The company allegedly denied him re-hire after he did not produce a release from his doctor. Salas claimed he was told he had to be 100% healed, which is one of those ADA no-nos. He sued for a variety of employment based claims, including disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, etc.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 15, 2011
Every year, the California Supreme Court decides cases that have significant impact for California employers. In its most recent term, the Court addressed a variety of relevant employment issues. Below, we summarize some important cases, and also address additional key issues awaiting the Courtâ€™s review.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 08, 2011
Governor Brown just signed SB 272, which clarifies last year's paid bone marrow /organ donation leave law. That law requires employers to grant up to five days' paid leave for bone marrow donation and up to 30 days' paid leave for organ donation.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • January 05, 2011
Wading through complex employment laws is often a challenging endeavor for employers. This has been especially true during the last several years, as companies have been reorganizing their workforces, cutting costs and tightening their budgets to stay competitive. If you were one of these employers, it's likely that you were required to reexamine the classification of certain employees who, as a result of the change in their duties, no longer met the exemption requirements.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 16, 2010
Overhill Farms received notice from the IRS that hundreds of its employees' social security numbers were invalid. The company gave employees a chance to correct the problem. Those who did not were terminated. The law imposes fines and potential criminal liability on employers who permit employees to work with false social security numbers.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 15, 2010
Retailers must provide "suitable seating" in accordance with the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order 7-2001, section 14. It says: "All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats."
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 10, 2010
Elections have consequences for employers and their lawyers. Governor Brown may turn out to be a pro-business governor, sensitive to the delicate economic conditions employers face, persistent high unemployment, and the incredible patchwork of laws and regulations already daunting employers. Sure, and the Easter Bunny is on his short list for Labor Commissioner.
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 20, 2010
This year, as in years past, the Legislature presented Governor Schwarzenegger with a number of workplace-related bills. The Governor chose to veto a number of bills that would have significantly impacted employers, and signed a few about which employers should be aware. We summarize the key laws below.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 27, 2010
The California Supreme Court decided significant employment law cases since our last review in 2009. The Court’s opinions address a number of topics of interest to employers: wage and hour law, harassment, arbitration agreements, attorney-client privilege, and the significance of “stray remarks.” However, the Court also left many issues for lawyers to wrangle with in the future. We summarize below the recently decided cases.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 08, 2010
There are a number of ways employers can raise a former employee's ire. These include contesting an unemployment claim or reporting the former employee to a licensing agency. Sometimes ex-employees retaliate with litigation they would not have filed were it not for the employer's action. The ex-worker's claim may involve significant potential liability and defense costs, possibly motivating the employer to settle or dismiss the initial action.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 10, 2010
The daily commute would be more pleasant if workers were paid for their time. The only thing that could make listening to music, talking on the phone, and sipping a hot beverage while driving more fun would be wages accruing with each lurch forward. Traffic jams, the risk of accidents, and insufferably bad driving no doubt would be less frustrating, too.
Shaw Valenza LLP • January 04, 2010
Whether it is menu planning, budgeting, negotiating leases or franchise agreements, monitoring the internet for the latest customer reviews, or getting food prepared and to the table, restaurateurs are pulled in many directions every day. With such diverse and unrelenting pressures, it is easy to overlook compliance with the many employment laws governing the workplace. Many restaurants are small employers, without the resources to employ human resources management. It is left to the chef, general manager, or owner to know the law and apply it correctly.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • December 02, 2009
It's true: the California appeals court struck down a particularly nutty employment law, one which required anyone who bought a Los Angeles supermarket to retain the prior owner's employees. The California Supreme Court is due to review the decision.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 04, 2009
Every year, the California Supreme Court decides cases that affect the workplace. Here are some of the most important employment law opinions since our last update in July 2008.
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.
Shaw Valenza LLP • April 14, 2009
Like all employers, public-sector employers (such as government agencies) conduct internal investigations concerning a variety of issues. Some investigations are occasioned by claims of unfair treatment. Others result from possible unlawful activity in the workplace.
Shaw Valenza LLP • March 26, 2009
California law prohibits employees from waiving or releasing their rights to minimum wages, overtime, and other minimum protections. For example, Labor Code section 1194 prohibits agreements by employees to work for less than minimum wage or without receiving overtime. Section 206.5 prohibits releases of wages concededly due. Section 2804 prohibits an employee from waiving the right to indemnification under Labor Code section 2802 for expenses incurred in the scope of employment. Section 5001 bars the release of an employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits unless approved by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 02, 2008
Employers based in other states may send their workers to California on sales or service calls, for long-term consulting assignments or for brief meetings. Employers regularly employing workers in California learn - sometimes the hard way - about the many unique employment laws and regulations they must follow, particularly in the "wage and hour" arena. But then there are businesses whose workers enter California only sporadically or for short periods of time. Can it be that an employee who lives and works in Arizona is covered by Arizona law on Monday and California law on Tuesday just because she takes a business trip? Hint: If the answer were "no," this article would be much less interesting.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 24, 2008
Lawsuits claiming harassment, discrimination or retaliation are expensive to defend. In an effort to resolve equal employment opportunity (EEO) issues before they become legal liabilities, most employers have developed and implemented procedures for dealing with internal EEO complaints. These internal procedures often involve a multi-step process used to evaluate whether the conduct at issue violates the organization’s policy and identify solutions to prevent inappropriate conduct from continuing.
Shaw Valenza LLP • October 23, 2008
Once again, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a majority of the workplace-related bills passed by the Legislature. Only a handful of new laws will directly affect employers. We summarize those laws, various bills that may reappear in the next legislative session, and a few additional developments below.
Shaw Valenza LLP • July 31, 2008
The California Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases since our last summary in September 2007. The Court’s opinions address a number of topics, including expense reimbursement, employee privacy, government employee due process rights, leaves of absence, drug testing, and retaliation. The Court also accepted review of several decisions that will affect employment law in the months to come. We summarize below the recently decided and pending cases.
Shaw Valenza LLP • June 18, 2008
President Bush recently signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). The new law, when it takes effect at the end of 2009, makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees based on genetic characteristics. Yet, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) already prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information. In fact, the FEHA has traditionally provided broader protections against discrimination than federal law. This creates confusion for employers who do not understand the many distinctions between the federal and state statutes. While this article does not address all of those distinctions, below are some of the key differences.
Shaw Valenza LLP • June 03, 2008
Many employers provide some form of paid sick leave to their employees. In fact, employers are required to do so for employees working in San Francisco. Don’t be jealous. The Legislature is considering a bill that would mandate paid sick leave statewide. See Assembly Bill 2716.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • January 16, 2008
January 1, 2008, is the effective date of the Earned Income Tax Credit Information Act (the Act). This legislation evolved from a California Franchise Tax Board study showing that approximately 460,000 California families qualified, but did not file, for the federal earned income tax credit (EITC.) The EITC Act requires employers on an annual basis to notify their employees of their potential eligibility for the EITC.
Shaw Valenza LLP • December 10, 2007
With the New Year comes new legislation. This year, the Legislature presented Governor Schwarzenegger with a number of workplace-related bills. The Governor chose to veto a significant number of bills that would have significantly impacted employers, and signed a few with which employers will need to comply come January. In addition to the legislation the Governor signed this year, a few laws from past years become effective in 2008. The key laws are summarized below.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • December 07, 2007
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a tentative ruling last month, voiding a Los Angeles city ordinance that required supermarkets, occupying more than 15,000 square feet and which changed ownership, to retain existing eligible workers for 90 days after the transfer of ownership.
Shaw Valenza LLP • November 12, 2007
A recent report called The Walker Loyalty Report for Loyalty in the Workplace, released in September 2007, noted more than 35% of employees are likely to leave an employer within the first two years of employment. Yet, employers’ investments in training, recruiting, and compensation continue to rise. Turnover is even more damaging when employees take clients, employees and trade secrets with them. Do employers have the legal right to expect their employees’ loyalty? And what can an employer do to protect itself from competitive conduct by employees during employment?
Fisher & Phillips LLP • September 25, 2007
The California Supreme Court ended the summer with a bang by announcing two major decisions which could have far-reaching effects. Here is a brief overview of the implications of each case to California employers.
Shaw Valenza LLP • September 10, 2007
The California Supreme Court decided several significant employment law cases since our last summary in August 2006. The Court’s opinions address a number of topics, from employment at will to class actions. The Court also has accepted review of several decisions that could be blockbusters in the months to come. We summarize below the recently decided cases and those that remain pending.
Ogletree Deakins • September 05, 2007
California employers should be aware of three decisions in the last week that will impact the way they do business here.
Shaw Valenza LLP • August 02, 2007
Plaintiffs in employment law cases frequently name individual employees as defendants. Sometimes, they sue co-workers. More frequently, they name supervisors or managers, and even high-level executives up to the CEO.
Shaw Valenza LLP • May 29, 2007
As anyone paying attention to the news is aware, immigration is a politically charged and volatile issue. Employers as a result must sort through a morass of laws and regulations. There are specific laws and procedures applicable to the employment of non-citizens. It is illegal to employ and retain aliens who are unauthorized to work.