|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link The West Coast Employer (pdf).Jackson Lewis LLP - July 01, 2008 Complying with Health Privacy Laws; Are Layoffs on the Horizon?; AB 1825 Training:
Consequences of Failing to Comply; Summer Heat; COURT WATCH; Report Link The Differences Between State and Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws.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. Report Link California Court of Appeal Interprets "Kin Care" Provisions for the First Time.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 05, 2008 In McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, No. A115223 (May 23, 2008), a case of first impression, a California Court of Appeal held that California's kin care statute – Labor Code section 233 – applies where an employer provides employees with an indefinite number of paid sick days on an as-needed basis. In essence, the court held that whenever an employer provides paid sick leave, it must comply with kin care obligations – no matter how it structures and calculates the sick leave entitlement. Report Link A Kin Care Conundrum.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. Report Link Enforcement Update: California DLSE Continues Industry Sweeps, Several Hundred Thousand Dollars In Fines Assessed.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - May 02, 2008 The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) and other government agencies have continued the practice of targeting specific industries with surprise audit sweeps. Recently it has raided local restaurants and auto body shops, but other industries are on its hit list. Report Link Two New California Employment Laws Now In Effect.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. Report Link California: Looking Back at 2007 and Ahead to 2008.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 02, 2008 Employee Social Security Numbers; Minimum Wage; California Computer Professionals; Mandatory Unpaid Leave for Military Spouses; Employee Expense Reimbursement; Supervisors and Retaliatory Discharge; Challenge to California's Union "Neutrality" Legislation. Report Link New Laws for California Employers in 2008.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. Report Link Judge Strikes Down Controversial Supermarket Ordinance.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. Report Link The Breach of the Duty of Loyalty - What Employers Can Do About It.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? Report Link Playing Defense: How Private-Sector Employers Fared in the 2007 California Legislative Session.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 23, 2007 It's been said that, on some days, it's just a real effort to get up and gnaw through the straps. California's private-sector employers might have felt that way when the Democratically controlled state Legislature adjourned in mid-September, sending the annual flood of legislation passed at the last minute to the Republican Governor's office for review, and either approval or veto. Report Link California Governor Helps Employers By Vetoing Several Pending Bills.Ford & Harrison LLP - October 17, 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had until Midnight, October 14, 2007 to act upon all of the legislation that had been pending on his desk. That deadline has now passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger used this time, at least in part, to convey his support for employers within California. Report Link California Supreme Court Issues Two Big Decisions.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. Report Link California Court Temporarily Halts Enforcement of No Match Regulation.Ford & Harrison LLP - September 18, 2007 In a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO and immigration rights groups, a California federal trial judge has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from mailing no match letter packets or taking any other action to implement its August 15, 2007 regulation entitled “Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers who Receive a No-Match Letter.” See AFL-CIO v. Chertoff (N.D. Ca. Aug. 31, 2007). Report Link California Supreme Court Employment Law Decisions 2006-2007.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. Report Link California Alert - CA Supreme Court Issues Three Key Decisions.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. Report Link Employment Lawsuits Against Individuals.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. Report Link California Employment Law Protects Employees Unauthorized to Work.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. Report Link Public School Newsletter - May 2007Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 08, 2007 Topics covered in this issue include the following: A school district's notice of disciplinary action to employees on summer break did not give the employee the opportunity to timely request a hearing; Teachers who serve under provisional permits are considered "probationary" employees and are entitled to layoff notice and a right to a hearing; A California Court of Appeal has held that the Sacramento City Unified School District must personally deliver a notice of non-reelection rather than mail the notice; A teacher and school district were not liable for the battery of severely autistic students. One new Public Employment Relations Board decision is discussed, as well as legislative issues regarding weapon control on school grounds and school safety. And in the news, a transgender student has been allowed to run for prom king and female softball players in Chula Visa, California have brought suit against their school alleging that they have worse facilities than the male teams. Report Link California Management Update (pdf).Ford & Harrison LLP - March 02, 2007 Highlights: New Employment Laws for 2007 and Beyond; Finally Some Clarity - California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Approves Sexual Harassment Training Regulations; Companies Must "Shine the Light" on their Security Breaches; Prior Periods of Employment Must be Considered When Determining an Employee's Eligibility for FMLA Leave; California Supreme Court To Review Whether Noncompetition Agreements Are Invalid Even If Narrowly Tailored; Employers May Recover Commissions Advanced To Employees But Never Earned. Report Link U.S. Data Protection Laws, With a Focus on California.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - March 01, 2007 In the U.S., no comprehensive national law yet exists, which generally requires notification of security breaches involving personal information. California passed the first data breach notification statute in 20032 and over 30 states have since enacted similar laws. The California law, commonly referred to as “SB 1386,” requires owners, licensors, or custodians of personal information to notify data subjects whose information was (or is reasonably believed to have been) acquired in an unauthorized fashion. California laws also include proactive obligations related to data destruction and maintaining reasonable security measures. Report Link Data Breach Class Action Filed for Negligence Related to Stolen Laptop.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 15, 2006 The emergence of a number of state laws aimed at protecting sensitive personal information and curbing the explosion of identity theft is beginning to have a foreseeable effect on workplace litigation. Such statutes are leading to negligence lawsuits filed by employees against their employers for failing to take appropriate measures to protect the computer databases, company laptops, and other repositories of confidential and personal information. These negligence claims have the potential to create significant exposure for employers, especially those that have not taken tangible steps to safeguard sensitive information. Report Link MAKING NICE: The Results of the 2006 California Legislative Session For Californi's Employers.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - November 03, 2006 Impending elections can have differing impacts where a state legislature is controlled by one party, and the governor is of the other party. Sometimes, an onrushing election creates a policy gridlock, with neither the legislature nor the governor willing to compromise, or make the other side "look good." In other circumstances, pressure from the upcoming "performance evaluation" by the voters spurs the governor and the legislature to act constructively. Report Link Court Clarifies Circumstances Under Which Employee "Bounty Hunters" May Collect Penalties for Employer's Violation of Labor Code Provisions.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 08, 2005 In the first significant case interpreting the notice and exhaustion requirements of the state's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a California Court of Appeal has dismissed class action claims seeking civil penalties for violations of various statutory recordkeeping requirements and minimum wage and overtime payment obligations. Although the plaintiffs' complaint made no mention of the PAGA and did not purport to bring a claim under that Act, the court in Caliber Bodyworks v. Superior Court , No. B184120 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal, 2nd Dist. Nov. 23, 2005), dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for penalties relating to Caliber's alleged failure to properly maintain employee records, issue payment on regular paydays and provide appropriate meal periods, holding that those claims seeking only civil penalties could not be collected via a private right of action. In so doing, the court provided some needed guidance on the scope of the PAGA. Report Link New California Employment Laws for 2006.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 04, 2005 Unlike years past, there are relatively few new employment laws for California employers to digest before January 1. Although numerous bills were proposed during the last legislative session, many of them died in the Legislature. Numerous others were met with a veto by the Governor. However, several employment-related bills survived, and this article summarizes the most significant among them. Report Link Mostly Quiet on the Sacramento Front: The Results of the California Legislature's 2005 Session.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 13, 2005 The 2005 session of the Democratically-controlled California legislature ended in early September. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his second full year in office, signed and vetoed the Legislature’s products through the first week in October. The resulting new laws affecting California private employers were largely anticlimactic, compared to the legislative production earlier this decade when a single party controlled both the Legislature and the Governor’s office. Report Link For The California Supreme Court, Predispute Contractual Waiver of Right to Jury Trial Are Not Enforceable in Civil Actions Under California Law.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 15, 2005 Among the greatest fears of many employers is the chance that a runaway jury could impose a potentially ruinous verdict in a wrongful discharge or harassment matter. Every month the headlines are filled with multi-million dollar jury verdicts. As a consequence, many employers have sought to avoid the great uncertainty which comes with jury trial, while both avoiding the cost of arbitration and retaining the right to appeal which comes from litigating matters in court. They have sought to accomplish these multifaceted goals through the use of pre-dispute jury waivers. Report Link Pre-Dispute Jury Trial Waivers Are Unenforceable.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 09, 2005 The California Supreme Court has ruled that a contractual agreement to waive the right to a jury trial, entered into prior to any dispute between the contracting parties, is unenforceable under the California Constitution and Section 631 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (the Code). [Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court, Cal. Sup. Ct. No. S123344 (August 4, 2005)]. While the Code prescribes six means by which parties to a civil suit may waive their jury trial right, a pre-dispute agreement is not one of the authorized methods. This ruling expressly disapproves the decision in Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 (1991), where a California Court of Appeal enforced such a pre-dispute waiver. Report Link Jackson Lewis Files Brief in Support of Supreme Court Review of Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 04, 2005 On December 1, 2004, Jackson Lewis filed in the United States Supreme Court an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief on behalf of a coalition of business groups. Report Link Schwarzenegger Attempts to Halt Scheduled Decrease in Nurse - Patient Ratios.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 10, 2004 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to delay the scheduled reduction of mandatory nurse-to-patient ratios for combined medical/surgical hospital units. Report Link Proposition 64: A Major Change in the Unfair Competition Law.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - November 18, 2004 On November 2, 2004, California voters approved major revisions to California Business and Professions Code ¤ 17200, the state's notorious Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Report Link Back To The Center? The Governator Puts His Stamp -- and the Brakes -- on California's Employment Legislation in 2004.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 11, 2004 With the recall of Democratic Governor Gray Davis, and the installation of Arnold Schwarzenegger as his successor late last year, employers expected a change in approach to Sacramento’s ever-increasing legislation of the workplace in the Golden State. The employers' expectations have been met – and how! Report Link Employment-Related Supreme Court Decisions: The Year in Review and What's Ahead.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 08, 2004 The United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have been busy over the past year, deciding a variety of legal issues that will impact California employers. Several pending cases also will affect the workplace. While not an exhaustive list, the following is a very brief summary of some of the most significant developments in employment law. Report Link California Legislature Dramatically Revises Onerous "Bounty Hunter" Law.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 12, 2004 Governor Schwarzenegger has signed legislation blunting the effects of the controversial "bounty hunter law." Report Link California's New Employment Laws: Part Two.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 18, 2003 This article is the second in a two-part series summarizing the most significant new employment-related laws affecting California employers.
Report Link California's New Employment Laws: Part One.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 05, 2003 During the past year, the California Legislature and the governor have been busy making new laws that affect employers. This article is the first of a two-part series summarizing the most significant new employment-related laws, the majority of which become effective on January 1, 2004. Report Link United States and California Supreme Courts to Take Up Employment Cases.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 09, 2003 In the upcoming months, the United States and the California Supreme Courts will decide a variety of legal issues, many of which will substantially affect California employers. Report Link California Legislative Round-Up for 2002: January 1 Brings New Laws Affecting Employers.Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP - December 23, 2002 This edition briefly summarizes a number of other employment-related bills enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor this year and which take effect on January 1, 2003. Report Link Recent Developments in California Employment Law - 2002 [PDF File].Pillsbury Winthrop LLP - November 20, 2002 This paper discusses many new employment-related statutes which will go into effect in 2003. It also examines the "Eight Great" employment cases pending before the California Supreme Court and highlights many new cases and administrative developments of interest to employers. [Ed: This is a 64 page PDF file]. Click Here If You Cannot Reach Article From Link Above. Report Link 2002-2003 Legislation Impacting California Employers.Winston & Strawn - November 14, 2002 Recently, California Governor Gray Davis signed several bills into law that will directly impact California employers by increasing burdens with respect to family leave, lay-off warnings and the right to determine absentee policies. Report Link Governor Davis Approves, and Vetoes, Labor and Employment Bills.Thelen Reid & Priest LLP - October 04, 2002 Discusses Senate Bill 1661 — Family Temporary Disability Insurance, Assembly Bill 2957 — Mass Layoff, Relocations and Terminations, Assembly Bill 1599 — Age Discrimination in Employment, Assembly Bill 1928 — Civil Actions: Gender-Related Violence, Senate Bill 1156 — Mediation of Contract Disputes in Agricultural Industry, Senate Bill 1068 — Amendment to Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Vetoed Legislation. Report Link Slate of New Employment Legislation Will Reinvent Workplace Law for California Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 01, 2002 Listing of the key measures signed by Governor Davis as of September 30, 2002. Where available, the official statement from the Governor's Office and an Internet link to the bill itself are included. Report Link California Employment Law 2002 -- The Adventure Begins [PDF File].Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP - January 01, 2002 Discusses several new requirements for California employers. Report Link 2002 California Legislation.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP - January 01, 2002 As the new year begins, we want to help keep you up to date with the many new laws that will have significant impact on California employers. Following is a brief summary of important new legislation. Report Link California Legislature, Courts, And Administrative Agency Issue Wide-Ranging Employment Statutes And Decisions.Pillsbury Winthrop LLP - May 01, 2001 Discusses three legislatives changes in California employment law that became effective in 2001 - AB 1856 (individual liability for harassment); AB 2222 (expanded definition of disability); AB 2509 (various wage and hour changes); also discusses number of court and administrative decisions that broadened emmployee rights.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 45NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
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