|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link The Retirement Group, Inc. v. Galante: A Lesson in Avoidable Consequences.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 09, 2009 The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of California recently issued its opinion in The Retirement Group, Inc. v. Galante, 2009 WL 2332008, a trade secrets case where the plaintiff, The Retirement Group, Inc. (TRG) alleged several of its former employees had misappropriated TRG's trade secrets and were using them to solicit TRG's customers. While the opinion adds little to the current body of California law governing trade secrets and post-employment restraints on trade, it provides glaring examples of problems facing trade secret litigants, which can be avoided through proper planning and making careful tactical decisions. Report Link SUPREME COURT MAKES IT HARDER FOR EMPLOYEES TO FILE CLASS ACTIONS FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND PENALTIES UNDER THE STATE’S PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 05, 2009 In Arias v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ruled that employees cannot bring "representative actions" against employers for unfair competition unless they satisfy all of the onerous procedural requirements for class action lawsuits. However, the Court also ruled these procedures do not apply to actions initiated under the State's Private Attorneys General Act. Report Link California Supreme Court: Only Those Who Have Actually Suffered Injury May Sue under PAGA and UCL.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 10, 2009 The California Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must have had suffered actual injury in order to have standing to sue under California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”) and the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Further, an injured individual may not assign to a third party his statutory right to sue in a representative capacity under the UCL or PAGA, and representative claims brought under the UCL must meet the procedural requirements for class actions. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, No. S151615 (June 29, 2009). 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 STATE HIGH COURT RELAXES STANDARDS FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION CLASS ACTIONS.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - May 27, 2009 A recent decision by our California Supreme Court, In re Tobacco Cases II, will make it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to pursue class actions under the state's Unfair Competition Law (Section 17200 of the Business & Professions Code). While this decision has been met with much dismay within the business community, it is unclear whether it will have a significant impact on employment cases, such as class actions for wage-hour violations. Report Link California Supreme Court Clarifies Who Has Standing to Sue Under California's Unfair Competition Law.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 31, 2006 On July 24, 2006, the California Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited opinions in two cases involving the "standing" (i.e., the right to file and pursue a lawsuit) of private litigants to pursue claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"): Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, No. S131798 and Branick v. Downey Savings and Loan Association, No. S132433 (July 24, 2006). In the companion cases, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 64 amendments to the UCL affecting "standing" applied retroactively, but that plaintiffs in cases filed before the passage of Proposition 64 can amend their lawsuits to cure any standing issues. Report Link Post-Proposition 64: What Remains of California's Unfair Competition Law?Jackson Lewis LLP - December 08, 2004 Passed overwhelmingly by California voters on November 2, 2004, Proposition 64 amended the California Business & Professions Code ("B&P"), Section 17200 et seq., more commonly known as the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The question for California employers now is what remains of California's UCL?
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 7NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds