|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link California Wage/Hour And Class Action Newsbreak.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - July 31, 2008 California employers have in the last few years been subject to a slew of class action cases concerning whether they must force employees to take meal periods and rest breaks. In an important opinion on July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal held in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) that, although employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods and rest breaks, they are not required to police their employees and compel them to take such breaks. Brinker stands as a potential breakthrough opinion on this issue (though it is still subject to California Supreme Court review). Report Link Gentry v. Superior Court: California Supreme Court Sets a High Bar for Enforcing Class Arbitration Waiver Clauses.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 20, 2007 By a closely-divided 4-3 vote and over a vigorous dissent, the California Supreme Court broke new ground regarding the validity of class action waiver clauses in employment arbitration agreements. While upholding the validity of such clauses, the court created a new standard that may create formidable obstacles to enforcement as applied to overtime class action claims. Report Link Employers May Face Increased Liability Following California Appeals Court Ruling on Class Actions.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 02, 2007 The California Court of Appeal has increased the potential liability to employers in wage and hour class actions in a decision on a procedural issue involving class certification of wage and penalty claims under the California Labor Code. Specifically, the Court ruled that representative claims for unpaid wages brought under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") must be brought as class actions under Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but claims for penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") do not. Arias v. Superior Court, No. C054185 (Cal. Ct. App., July 24, 2007). For California employers, this opinion underscores the need to conduct periodic audits of wage and hour practices to limit potential liability for wage and hour claims. Report Link California SC Approves Disclosure Of Potential Class Members' Personal Information Without Consent.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 30, 2007 The California Supreme Court ruled in a consumer class action case that affirmative consent of a potential class member was not required before disclosure could occur and that notice and a mere opportunity to object were sufficient to protect a potential class member’s privacy rights. This January 25, 2007 decision in Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (Olmstead), S133794, may have significant implications for California employers involved in class action litigation brought by current or former employees. Report Link The California Supreme Court Leaves a Window of Opportunity for Class Action Waiver Clauses in Employment Arbitration Agreements.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 30, 2005 On June 27, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, Case No. S113725, and held that, “at least under some circumstances,” class action and class arbitration waiver clauses in consumer contracts are not enforceable. Although Discover Bank may not represent the best of all possible results for employers, the California Supreme Court left open a window of opportunity for the use and enforcement of class action and class arbitration waiver clauses in the employment context. Report Link California Supreme Court Upholds Grant of Class Certification in Wage and Hour Class Action Case: Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 30, 2004 California will likely remain a hotbed of class action litigation against employers in light of the California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rocher), S106718, issued on August 26, 2004. Report Link New California Supreme Court Decision Promotes Employment Dispute Class Actions.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 27, 2004 The long-awaited decision in Sav-On Drugs v. Superior Court (Rocher) overruled a court of appeal decision and found the trial court had not abused its discretion in certifying a class of operating managers and assistant managers employed by the drug store chain in California.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 7NO 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