|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
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 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 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 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.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 11NO 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