|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link California Enacts New Disability Access Legislation.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 11, 2008 A landmark disability access bill aimed at decreasing unwarranted disability-access litigation that does not advance disability access and increasing equal access for individuals with disabilities has been approved by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The legislation, S.B. 1608, adds new provisions to the state’s existing disability access laws which are likely to benefit employers and landlords. The law goes into effect January 1, 2009, with some provisions delayed until July 1, 2009. 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 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 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 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 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.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 17NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE
Sacramento
December 2, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Los Angeles
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Costa Mesa
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Sacramento
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008San Francisco
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Sacramento
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008San Francisco
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Generation Wars: Tips for Effectively Managing Generational Differences in the WorkplaceMinneapolis
December 2, 2008 Fredrikson & ByronLegally Required Sexual Harassment Training - California LocationsOntario
December 2, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsThe Generation Wars: Tips for Effectively Managing Generational Differences in the WorkplaceMinneapolis
December 2, 2008 Fredrikson |
|
| ||
|
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