|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Cal Supreme Court Lets Stand A Key Disability Ruling.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - September 04, 2008 The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review in a case titled Arteaga v. Brink’s Incorporated, letting stand an appellate court ruling that circumscribed the definition of “disability” under California law. Report Link Retailer Must Make All Merchandise Accessible to Disabled, California Appellate Court Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 08, 2008 The California Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that a retailer failed to make its merchandise available to disabled individuals in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the state Unruh Act and the state Disabled Persons Act. Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s LLC, No. A106199 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2008). The court further ruled that the retailer did not satisfy its ADA obligation to provide access by opening new stores that were accessible. The court reversed judgment in favor of the retailer and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Report Link California Employee Fails to Prove Termination Was Due to Disability or Comp Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 24, 2008 An armored car company employee, who was subject to an internal investigation by his employer for missing cash and eventually terminated, failed to prove his termination was due to his physical disability or in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, the California Court of Appeal ruled. Report Link Armored Truck Company Has Ironclad Defense to Disability Claim.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - June 03, 2008 Employers frequently experience the following scenario: Employee is suspected of wrongdoing. Employer investigates and decides to terminate Employee. At the eleventh hour, before he is fired, he claims that he is injured and disabled. He files a workers’ compensation claim. Employer wants to fire Employee, but is concerned about the appearance of discrimination and retaliation. Has the employee trapped the employer? Report Link California Employers Not Required To Accommodate Medical Marijuana Users.Ogletree Deakins - February 08, 2008 The California Supreme Court recently rejected a lawsuit brought by an employee who was terminated shortly after his employer learned that he had tested positive for marijuana. According to the court, employers have the right to conduct preemployment drug tests and to fire, or refuse to hire, individuals who test positive for illegal drugs – even if they are used for medicinal purposes. Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., No. S138130, California Supreme Court (January 24, 2008). Report Link California Supreme Court Rules that Employer Is Not Obligated to Accommodate Employee Engaged in Compassionate Use of Marijuana.Ford & Harrison LLP - January 25, 2008 As reported in an earlier Legal Alert, on November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the highly controversial case of Ross v. RagingWire. At issue in Ross is whether an employer must retain as an employee an individual who fails a properly administered drug test due to the compassionate use of medical marijuana. Report Link Employers Have No Duty to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 25, 2008 California's Supreme Court ruled today that California law does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs, including so-called medical marijuana In a 5-2 decision in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Docket No. S138130, the court affirmed the dismissal of an employee's complaint alleging his former employer had failed to accommodate his disability when it terminated him after he failed a drug screen. Report Link Employers Must Engage In The Interactive Process For Disabled Employees, Regardless Of Whether Reasonable Accommodations Are Later Found To Exist.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 30, 2007 In Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) delivered a blow to management in its defense against Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims brought by disabled employees. The court found that the interactive process and providing reasonable accommodations are separate requirements in disability discrimination claims, and thus constitute separate causes of action with separate burdens of proof. Report Link California Supreme Court Considers Employer’s Obligation to Accommodate Employee’s Medical Marijuana Use.Ford & Harrison LLP - November 19, 2007 On November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the highly controversial case of Ross v. RagingWire. At issue in Ross is whether an employer must retain an employee who uses marijuana for medical reasons and, because of that use, fails a properly administered drug test. Report Link California Disability Discrimination Law - Employees Must Show They Can Do the Job.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 29, 2007 The text of the California Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA") states, in so many words, that California employers do not have to hire or continue to employ "disabled" individuals who cannot perform "essential job functions" even with "reasonable accommodation." Report Link California Disability Discrimination Law: Employees Must Prove Ability to Perform Job's Essential Duties.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 28, 2007 In a close decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that, just as under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiffs proceeding under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act must prove that they are able to perform the essential functions of the job in order to prevail on a disability discrimination claim. Report Link Plaintiffs Alleging Disability Discrimination under California Law Have Burden of Proving They Can Perform Essential Duties of the Job.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 15, 2007 In Green v. State of California, a 4-3 split decision, the state Supreme Court brought the burdens of proof under the disability provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) more in line with the evidentiary burdens under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), holding that FEHA requires plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination to prove that they are “qualified individuals” under the statute, just as the federal ADA requires. Report Link Disabled Employee’s Claims Cannot Survive Summary Judgment Absent Specific Evidence of Pretext or Denial of Requests for Accommodation (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2007 In King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff who alleged that he was terminated because of his blood disorder, and that he was denied accommodations, but had no specific evidence of pretext, and failed to identify any specific requests for accommodation he had made. Report Link California Court of Appeal Affirms Decision in Favor of Employer on Long-Term Employee’s Disability Discrimination Claims.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 28, 2007 The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer, thus dismissing the employee’s disability discrimination and breach of contract claims. Report Link Preemployment Testing Challenged under Antidiscrimination Laws,Shaw Valenza LLP - January 29, 2007 Anti-discrimination laws generally are simple to understand and abide by. Employers are prohibited from making decisions that are based on illegal criteria such as race, sex, or religion. In most cases, there is a straightforward analysis regarding the reasons an employer treated a plaintiff less favorably than a similarly situated co-employee. Report Link The Importance of Getting It Right: Court Rules Reasonable Accommodation Must be Provided to Workers "Regarded As" Disabled.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 12, 2006 In Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. B178676 (June 2, 2006), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held for the first time that California employers must engage in the "interactive process" with, and potentially reasonably accommodate, workers who are "regarded as" disabled. The case underscores the importance of making informed decisions based upon a worker's inability to safely perform "essential job functions." Report Link California High Court to Review "Medical Marijuana" Use as a Reasonable Accommodation.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 06, 2005 The California Supreme Court has agreed to review whether an employee's request to use prescribed marijuana is a request for reasonable accommodation of an alleged disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Report Link California Employee Not Entitled to Waiver of Positive Drug Test as Reasonable AccommodationJackson Lewis LLP - September 09, 2005 The California Court of Appeal has rejected an employee's request to use prescribed marijuana as a reasonable accommodation of an alleged disability. Unless or until the California Legislature or the electorate amends California law, it is lawful to deny employment to applicants who fail lawfully administered, pre-employment drug tests, even when the applicant uses marijuana legally under California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Report Link Court Ruling Clears Smoke Regarding Medical Marijuana and Pre-employment Drug Tests.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 09, 2005 Must a California employer hire an applicant who tests positive on a pre-hire drug test, but claims to be using marijuana for medical reasons? No, according to a new decision from the Third District Court of Appeal, employers may decline to hire applicants who use marijuana in violation of federal law, even if that use would not be a violation of state criminal law. The decision, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., was decided on the pleadings, (i.e., only facts in the case were taken from the plaintiff’s lawsuit itself), and not from any evidentiary submissions by the parties. For purposes of its ruling, the court assumed the truth of all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, Gary Ross suffered from a serious back impairment and used marijuana for pain relief. Ross’ doctor recommended the use of marijuana, pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Report Link California Supreme Court Holds That Expanded Disability Discrimination Laws Are Retroactive.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 07, 2003 On February 20, 2003, the California Supreme Court ruled in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. that a recently-enacted state law which expanded the definition of "disability" will apply retroactively. Since it became effective on January 1, 2001, this law has considerably impacted employer practices with respect to individuals with disabilities. Report Link California supreme court holds that meaning of disability” in california is broader than federal law [PDF file].Foley & Lardner - March 04, 2003 On February 20, 2003, the California Supreme Court ruled that the 2001 amendments to the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) did not change the meaning of physical disability under the
FEHA. Report Link California Court Emphasizes That State Law Disability Law Requirements Exceed Those Under Federal Law.Kauff, McClain & McGuire LLP - February 24, 2003 A recent California Supreme Court decision emphasizes that state law protections for disabled employees go beyond those provided by the federal Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Report Link California Appeals Court Expands Reasonable Accommodation Requirement Beyond Qualified Individuals with a Disability.Kauff, McClain & McGuire LLP - May 23, 2002 Discusses Bagatti v. Department of Rehabilitation, 97 Cal. App. 4th 344 (2002), in which the court held that the duty to make reasonable accommodation does not require that an employee be a 'qualified individual with a disability' as does the federal statute. Report Link FEHA Imposes A Broader Duty On Employers to Accommodate Disabled Employees Than Does The ADA.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - May 14, 2002 A California Court of Appeal reinstated a disabled employee's lawsuit which had been dismissed under the more employer friendly provisions of the ADA. The court ruled that California's disability law is more favorable to employees, and must be used in state job bias cases. Report Link Navigating Reasonable Accommodations Under the FEHA and the ADA – What Employers Need to Know to Comply [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - February 01, 2001 Overview of employer's reasonable accommodation obligations under the Fair Employment Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Report Link California court outlines employers' reasonable accommodation requirements.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 01, 2001 Discusses Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 00 C.D.O.S. 9699 (December 5, 2000), in which the California Court of Appeals outlined an employer's reasonable accomodation obligations under the FEHA. Report Link Fair employment and housing act expands disability law.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 01, 2000 Discusses amendments to the FEHA, which take effect January 1, 2001, that expands the definition of disabled vis-a-vis the ADEA. For example, mitigating measures may not be taken into account under the new amendments.
|
Employment Law Seminars
43rd Annual Midwest Labor and Employment Law Seminar on October 12-13, 2008
Easton
October 12, 2008 Baker HostetlerReserve the Dates!!! – Public Sexual Harassment Training Webinar for Supervisors and ManagersOnline
October 14, 2008 Ballard RosenbergThe 2008 Nevada Employer: RenoReno
October 14, 2008 LittlerSouth Carolina's Immigration Law, I-9 & E-Verify Breakfast BriefingSpartanburg
October 14, 2008 Ford & HarrisonEmployment Law WorkshopLa Jolla
October 14, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsHiring minors: Legal issues to considerPhiladelphia
October 14, 2008 Buchanan IngersollEmployment Law Developments in IndianaCarmel
October 15, 2008 OgletreeEmployment Law Developments in TennesseeNashville
October 15, 2008 OgletreeWorkplace Harassment SeminarIndianapolis
October 16, 2008 Indiana Chamber of CommerceFlorida Employment Law UpdateTampa
October 16, 2008 Ogletree |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2008 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