|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Hospital Visit Should Have Alerted Employer To CFRA Coverage But Termination Not Disability Discrimination.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - September 04, 2008 California employers covered by the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) must promptly respond to employee requests for leave. But what happens when the qualified employee never actually requests leave? A recent California appellate court decision says that the employer may still need to grant CFRA protections if the employee provides mere hints of CFRA coverage. Report Link The California Supreme Court Issues Key CFRA Decision.Shaw Valenza LLP - May 09, 2008 The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California’s equivalent, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), present various challenges to employers. The CFRA, like the FMLA, allows eligible employers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other things, the employee’s own “serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee.” Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed revisions to the FMLA regulations that unfortunately do little to simplify the administration of leaves of absence. Now the California Supreme Court has further complicated the situation. While awaiting the final FMLA regulations, California employers should carefully review the Court’s decision in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central. Report Link California Supreme Court Rules Part-Time Employment During Leave Does Not Bar Leave Eligibility.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 21, 2008 Making the California Family Rights Act more difficult for employers to administer, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employee is not automatically disqualified from taking leave for a “serious health condition” simply because the employee holds a part-time job for another employer performing work similar to her full-time job. Report Link The California Supreme Court's First CFRA Opinion Underscores The Need To Make Informed Decisions About Eligibility For CFRA Leave.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - April 10, 2008 In Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, the California Supreme Court issued its first opinion concerning the state's version of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA). Like the FMLA, the CFRA permits an employer to condition CFRA leave on a timely certification from the employee's health care provider that the employee has a "serious health condition" and thereby qualifies for CFRA leave. If the employee's health care provider provides such a certification, the employer may seek a second opinion from its own doctor. In the event of a disagreement, the employer may seek a tie-breaking third opinion from a neutral health care provider. Report Link California Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in Favor of Employer in California Family Rights Act Case.Ford & Harrison LLP - April 09, 2008 In a case of first impression in California, on Monday (April 7, 2008) the California Supreme Court held that working a part time job while seeking medical leave from a full time job is not conclusive evidence under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) that the employee is able to perform the job from which she seeks leave. See Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (4/7/08). The Court also held that the employer’s failure to seek a third opinion regarding the employee’s medical condition did not bar the employer from later claiming that the employee did not suffer from a serious health condition. Report Link Rod Fliegel Reflects on Recent Ruling on California Family Rights Act (pdf).Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 29, 2008 This article examines a case focusing on California's Family Rights Act (CalFRA), in which the plaintiff, and employee of Sutter Health Central, sued the latter for refusing to grant her medical leave while she continued to perform the same tasks at her second job. As the superior court found in favor of Sutter Health and the court of appeals affirmed this decision, the case is now in front of the California Supreme Court. "This case will be the first glimpse into how the Calfornia Supreme Court views CalFRA, which is in substance fairly similar to the federal statute. The use of this leave, whether it's continuing or intermittent, is something that is a fairly significant challenge for employers, especially those with employees who have more than one job," said Rod Fliegel of Littler Mendelson's San Francisco office. Report Link California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument On Its First California Medical Leave Case.Ford & Harrison LLP - January 14, 2008 On January 8, 2008, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (12/10/04). This case provides California’s highest court with its first opportunity to interpret provisions of California’s Family Rights Act. Report Link Employee Provided Sufficient Notice of the Need for CFRA Qualifying Leave (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - June 01, 2007 In Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., the California Court of Appeal held that plaintiff Michael Faust provided sufficient information to inform his former employer, California Portland Cement Company (“Portland”), of his need for medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), and that such notice triggered the employer’s duty to inform the employee of his CFRA rights. Moreover, the employee’s subsequent failure to follow up directly with the employer concerning his medical condition did not abrogate his CFRA claims. Report Link California Court of Appeal Holds that Employer’s Failure to Provide Employee with Notice of Rights under California Family Rights Act Precluded Summary Judgment in Employer’s Favor.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 22, 2007 A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal demonstrates the importance of ensuring that employee leave requests are handled by one central manager who is well trained on the laws (both federal and state) governing such requests. In Faust v. California Portland Cement Company (5/10/07), the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and reinstated the employee’s claims, based on the employer’s failure to provide the employee with notice of his rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Report Link Termination After Return from Leave Does Not Violate CA Family Rights Act or Bonus Wage Requirements.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 20, 2006 An employee who was terminated for poor performance after 14 weeks of medical leave failed to prove the employer violated the California Family Rights Act. Affirming a jury verdict in favor of the employer, the California Court of Appeal also found the employer had not violated the state Labor Code by failing to pay certain bonuses to the employee because she was not employed on the date of the bonus payment, a condition of the bonus plan. Report Link Laid-Off Pregnant Employee Fails To Establish State Family Leave Discrimination Claim.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - May 14, 2002 The California appellate court found that the state's family leave regulations stating that an employee "has no greater right to reinstatement" than if the employee had been continuously employed allowed an employer to lay off a pregnant employee even though the employee was on approved family leave.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 11NO SUBTOPICSEmployment 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