|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Employment Contracts -- Getting It Right.Shaw Valenza LLP - June 06, 2008 All employment relationships are contractual. The essence of the relationship is the employee’s promise to work in exchange for the employer’s promise to pay wages. However, employers and employees enter into more formal employment contracts to define the employment relationship in more precise terms. Report Link Employment Agreement Update: At Will Agreement Defeats Termination Claim.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - May 02, 2008 There is no more basic employment practice than obtaining a signed at will agreement from each employee. In contrast to the murky pool of discrimination law, and the Byzantine maze of wage and hour laws, the bright line rule for at will employment is practically bulletproof. Report Link No Wrongful Discharge Claim for Worker with "Sympathetic Ear" For Workplace Complaints.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 25, 2008 An employee who claimed that his employer terminated him because he had a "sympathetic ear" for fellow workers' complaints could not bring a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the California Court of Appeal ruled. Luke v. Collotype Labels USA, Inc., No. A116544 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008). Affirming summary judgment in favor of the employer, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim was pre-empted or barred by the National Labor Relations Act, as the plaintiff's claims asserted arguable unfair labor practices governed by federal labor law. Report Link California Appellate Court Revives Wrongful Discharge Claim Based on Reporting Coworker's Threats.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 05, 2007 Recognizing an explicit public policy requiring employers to provide a safe and secure workplace, a California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employee who claimed he was terminated after complaining about a coworker's threat of violence stated a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Franklin v. The Monadnock Co., No. B191267 (Cal. Ct. App. May 24, 2007). The court further ruled that employers must take reasonable steps to address credible threats of violence in the workplace and that the plaintiff's complaint about his coworker served the public interest in promoting workplace safety. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint and allowed the case to proceed. Report Link "Simple Logic" Precludes Ambiguity in Offer Letter's At Will Clause, Says California Supreme Court.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 07, 2006 An offer letter containing the phrase "your employment is at will," which is read, accepted, and signed by an employee "contained no ambiguity, patent or latent, in its termination provisions." Additional language in the letter defining "at will" to mean the employer had the right to terminate employment "at any time" did not create ambiguity as to whether cause was required, according to the Supreme Court of California in the case, Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., No. S124494 (August 3, 2006). As such, the employee's attempt to show there was evidence of an implied agreement -- verbal statements, conduct, and documents -- that he would not be discharged except for cause was unsuccessful. Report Link What Is Plain Meaning of Termination "At Will," California Supreme Court Asked to Decide.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 04, 2005 On January 29, 2005, Jackson Lewis LLP filed a brief amicus curiae in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Southern California Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel - America, in support of an employer's right to terminate the employment of an individual at will. Report Link The California Supreme Court's Opinion Regarding Interference with At-Will Employment Relationships: Clear Sailing or Opening the Floodgates for Litigation?Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 23, 2004 In a stated effort to promote and encourage fair and lawful competition, on August 12, 2004, a unanimous California Supreme Court rendered its decision in Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004). The central issue in Reeves was whether inducing an at-will employee to breach an employment relationship could give rise to liability for the employee's new employer.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 7NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Managing Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?
Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire WoodsThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActStamford
2008-9-10 Jackson Lewis LLPHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSan Francisco
September 11, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 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