|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link “ME TOO” EVIDENCE IN DISCRIMINATION CASES.Shaw Valenza LLP - June 19, 2009 The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties may change the way courts rule on evidence in discrimination cases. The court found admissible as proof of discrimination other employees’ testimony about discrimination against them. Such “me too” evidence therefore may be admissible to bootstrap the plaintiff’s own claim. Report Link Labor Law Review: With Wage Garnishments On The Rise, Employers Must Avoid Retaliatory Discharges.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - February 04, 2009 During these tough economic times, as employees fall into debt, employers may see an increase in wage garnishments. Can an employer terminate an employee if the wage garnishments become a nuisance? The answer is: "It depends." Read this article for details. Report Link STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FEHA CLAIMS ON THE VERGE OF EXTINCTION.Shaw Valenza LLP - January 02, 2009 The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires an employee to file an administrative complaint of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation within one year of the alleged unlawful employment practice. This statute of limitations provides employees with time to assert their claims. It also protects employers from stale claims, faded memories, and unavailable witnesses, and makes it easier for the administrative agency involved (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)) to investigate, obtain documents, find witnesses, etc. Report Link California Supreme Court: Voluntary Administrative Proceedings Toll Limitations Period under FEHA.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 07, 2008 The California Supreme Court has held the one-year statute of limitations on claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) is subject to equitable tolling while an employee pursues an internal administrative remedy before filing a claim. McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., No. S153964 (Cal. Oct. 27, 2008). The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the trial court incorrectly dismissed one plaintiff’s claims on statute of limitations grounds and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Report Link McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District: An Employee's Use of an Employer's Internal Complaint Procedure May "Equitably Toll" the Time Limit for Filing a DFEH Complaint.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - November 06, 2008 In McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District, No. S153964 (Oct. 27, 2008), the California Supreme Court recently held that the one-year statute of limitations for discrimination complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) may be tolled by an employee's good faith use of his employer's internal administrative remedies. Employers who utilize internal investigational processes must now, more than ever, properly manage these processes and document the results. Report Link SEVERAL NEW “RETALIATION” DECISIONS.Shaw Valenza LLP - July 07, 2008 The courts have issued a significant number of retaliation decisions in the past several weeks. The U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases that employees are protected from adverse employment actions for complaining about civil rights violations, even when the underlying statutes did not contain anti-retaliation provisions. Two panels of the California Court of Appeal went in different directions regarding what constitutes “retaliation.” Report Link Cal Supreme Court: Supervisors Not Personally Liable for Retaliation Under FEHA.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - April 17, 2008 The California Supreme Court handed a major victory to employers on March 3rd in a case titled Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines. The decision related to liability under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace, and also prohibits retaliation against an employee who protests illegal discrimination, files a complaint, or testifies in a legal proceeding.
Report Link California Supreme Court Rejects Personal Liability for Supervisors in FEHA Retaliation Cases.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 04, 2008 Individual supervisors cannot be held liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, according to a long-awaited decision issued by the California Supreme Court in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership. No. S151022 (2008). The Court found that the statutory language was ambiguous on the issue, and that the legislative history of FEHA did not support such an extension of liability for retaliation to individual supervisors. Report Link No Individual Liability for Retaliation under the FEHA.Shaw Valenza LLP - March 12, 2008 The California Supreme Court continued a trend on Monday, March 3, 2008, when it held in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines that supervisors cannot be held individually liable for retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Court has consistently shielded individual supervisors from various other forms of employment related claims. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Bement, a 2005 decision, that individual corporate agents, including officers, directors, and shareholders, could not be personally liable for an employer’s failure to pay wages to its employees. Similarly, in 2000, the Court held in Carrisales v. Department of Corrections that individual, non-supervisory employees could not be held liable for harassment. Report Link The California Supreme Court Narrowly Rules That Individuals Are Not Liable for Retaliation in Some Circumstances.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 07, 2008 In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court in Jones v. The Lodge at Torry Pines Partnership, et al. found that nonemployer individuals (e.g., supervisors) are not personally liable for claims of retaliation brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), at least when the retaliation is not in response to a complaint of sex harassment. The case resolves an unsettled question brought to prominence by the 1998 California Supreme Court opinion in Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640. In Baird, the court held that nonemployer individuals cannot be held personally liable for discrimination under the FEHA because discrimination arises "out of the performance of necessary personnel management duties" that are "an inherent and unavoidable part of the supervisory function." By contrast, nonemployer individuals can be held personally liable for harassment, which "consists of a type of conduct not necessary for performance of a supervisory job" and is "presumably engaged in for personal gratification" or due to meanness, bigotry, or for other personal motives." Report Link California Supreme Court Finds that Individuals Cannot Be Held Liable for Retaliation.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 05, 2008 The California Supreme Court recently held that individuals who are not employers cannot be held liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Gov. Code § 12940(j)). See Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (3/3/08).
In this case, Jones complained that his supervisor, Weiss, and another manager created a hostile work environment and discriminated against him by telling sexual jokes and making sexually charged comments. After Jones complained, Weiss threatened to fire him, gave him a negative performance review, excluded him from weekly management meetings and issued him four performance warnings. Jones later attempted to resign, but was told his services were no longer needed. Report Link Individuals Cannot be Held Liable for Retaliation Claims.Ogletree Deakins - March 04, 2008 In Reno v. Baird, the California Supreme Court held in 1998 that individuals are not personally liable for discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Similarly, today the Court ruled in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership that while employers may be held liable, individuals may not be held financially responsible for retaliation claims in the discrimination context. Report Link Fire Department’s Refusal To Assign Disabled Captain To His Desired Job Assignment Was Not An “Adverse Employment Action.”Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dep’t, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Los Angeles Fire Department on claims for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and adverse employment action in violation of public policy. The court held that the Department did not subject plaintiff Gregory Malais to an adverse employment action as a matter of law. Report Link Summary Judgment On Retaliation Claim Proper Where Terminated Employee Fails to Submit Evidence of Pretext (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l, the California Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was properly granted on the retaliation claim of plaintiff Diane Loggins because she failed to offer substantial evidence that her employer’s reason for terminating her was a pretext for retaliation. Report Link California Supreme Court Broadens Retaliation Protections (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - August 24, 2005 In a 4-2 decision, the California Supreme Court held on Thursday that an employee can maintain
a retaliation action against an employer even where the employee’s protected activity is “subtle” and the employer’s actions are negligible. This ruling reminds California employers to be extremely careful when taking adverse action against any employee who engages in activity that may be considered protected. Report Link Whistleblower Protection Without Blowing the Whistle? The California Supreme Court Says That Employees Can Silently Oppose Discrimination and Still Sue for Retaliation.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 15, 2005 California employers will need to be on their increased guard to protect themselves against retaliation claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) following a California Supreme Court decision that significantly expands employee rights to sue for retaliation. In order to establish a claim for retaliation, an employee must establish that he or she engaged in “protected activity” (i.e., opposed unlawful conduct); that he or she was subjected to an “adverse employment action” because of that activity; and that he or she suffered damages. In Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the standard for opposing unlawful conduct, and resolved a conflict among the lower courts about how to define an adverse employment action. The decision will make it easier for employees to bring claims of retaliation, and will make it correspondingly more difficult for employers to get retaliation cases dismissed prior to trial. Report Link Student Athlete on Scholarship Is Not an Employee for FEHA Claims.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 01, 2002 The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for a university holding a Labor Code provision excluding student athletes from the definition of "employee" barred a student's suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for discriminatory termination of her scholarship. Report Link Supervisor May Be Liable for Retaliation [PDF File].Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2002 A California appeals court has ruled that a supervisor may be individually liable for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Walrath v. Sprinkel. Report Link Circumstantial Evidence Might Be Sufficient To Support A Claim of Retaliation.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - May 14, 2002 A California appellate court reinstated a discrimination case based on circumstantial evidence that the employee's supervisor said she was "going to get revenge" against anyone who cooperated in the investigation against her. Report Link Employee May Sue Religious Employer For Discrimination In Violation Of State Constitution And Federal Law.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - March 18, 2002 Discusses Phillips v. St. Mary Regional Medical Center 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1831 (Cal.App.4th Dist., Div. 2, 2/19/02), in which the court held that FEHA, Title VII and the California constitution were sufficient authority to overcome the religious-entity exemption under the pre-amended version of FEHA.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 20SUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
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