Total Articles: 74
A Moving Target: The California DLSE Modifies Again Its FAQs on California's New Wage Notice Required for Hourly Employees
On January 23, 2012, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) announced on its website1 modifications to the answers to two of its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and added 10 new FAQs and answers concerning the wage notice required by the California Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) in Labor Code section 2810.5.2
Arbitration Agreement in Employment Application Unconscionable, Unenforceable, California Court Rules
A provision in an employment application requiring the applicant, but not the employer, to submit all disputes to arbitration was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, has ruled. Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc., No. C065744 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2012). The agreement was procedurally unconscionable, the Court said, because the trial court found the plaintiff-applicants had no opportunity to negotiate its terms, the applicable arbitration rules were not provided, and the employer did not explain the agreement’s meaning. The agreement also was substantively unconscionable because, unlike the applicant, the employer was not bound to submit claims to arbitration. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order denying arbitration.
CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYMENT CREDIT CHECK LAW TAKES EFFECT
California employers may wish to obtain employees' and applicants' credit information as part of their hiring processes and for other employment-related reasons. Assembly Bill 22, which took effect on January 1, 2012, significantly restricts employers' ability to procure credit reports. The new law specifically applies to credit checks and does not address criminal record and other background checks.
NEW EMPLOYEE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOW IN EFFECT
Labor Code § 2810.5, which was added to the Labor Code as part of the "Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011" ("WTPA") became effective on January 1, 2012. It imposes a new requirement on employers to provide certain information in writing to all new hires, as set forth below.
California Supreme Court to Revisit Arbitration Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court in November ordered the California Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Sonic-Calabasas A v. Moreno. So, the California Supreme Court just issued the following order:
Worker Deemed Independent Contractor,Labor Code Claims Denied
Proper classification of a worker as an independent contractor involves careful consideration of a variety of factors. Often the distinction between employee and independent contractor is not black and white. The potential liability of an erroneous decision can be significant, particularly given recent amendments to California law dramatically increasing penalties. Nevertheless, employers often make the correct decision, as illustrated in the recent California appellate court case titled Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company.
Court of Appeal Holds Arbitration Agreement Invalid
Yes, again.This time, the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement that was included in an application form. (Don't do this). The key issues for the court were (1) that the agreement was written in the first person so as to suggest it was one-way (2) that the agreement referenced the AAA arbitration rules, but did not attach them to the agreement (3) that there was no language explaining that "binding arbitration" means you give up the right to trial in court and (4) that the agreement was "take it or leave it."
California DLSE Issues Template AB 469 Notice... IMPORTANT
AB 469 requires employers to give new hires, at the time of hire, a notice containing certain information listed in the law. The statute also requires the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to issue a model notice. The DLSE finally did so, and it is here.
More on AB 469 Notice "Template"
Per my previous post, the DLSE issued its "template" for compliant AB 469 disclosures. See the post re DLSE template here.
NEW CALIFORNIA LAW OUTLAWS USE OF CREDIT REPORTS FOR SCREENING MOST JOB APPLICANTS
Governor Brown recently signed Assembly Bill 22, which will prohibit California employers from obtaining "consumer credit reports" for most employment purposes. Under this new law, effective January 1, 2012, an employer may only seek a credit report for an applicant or employee if one of the following applies:
California Appellate Court Rules that "All Relevant Evidence" Must Be Considered in Workplace Violence Proceedings, Including Otherwise Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
In a ground-breaking decision that will make it easier for employers to obtain restraining orders to protect their employees from violence in the workplace, a California appellate court has ruled that "all relevant evidence" must be considered in such proceedings – even otherwise inadmissible hearsay. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, Nos. D058491 & D058492 (Fourth Dist., Div. One Dec. 5, 2011).
California Court of Appeal Declines to Hold Individual Supervisors Liable for Discrimination or Retaliation Under California Military and Veterans Code
In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled that there is no individual liability for discrimination or retaliation under California Military and Veterans Code section 394, which protects from discrimination employees who are called to active duty. Haligowski v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B231310 (Nov. 11, 2011).
California Court of Appeal Declines to Hold Individual Supervisors Liable for Discrimination or Retaliation Under California Military and Veterans Code
In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled that there is no individual liability for discrimination or retaliation under California Military and Veterans Code section 394, which protects from discrimination employees who are called to active duty. Haligowski v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B231310 (Nov. 11, 2011).
No Individual Liability for Supervisors Under Military Service Anti-Discrimination Law
Mario Pantuso is a member of the U.S. Navy. He served six months in Iraq and then sought return to his job at Safway Services. Denied reinstatement, he sued Safway and two former supervisors under the Military and Veterans Code for discrimination. If you are unfamiliar with that law, here it is, as quoted by the court:
California Bans Employee Credit Checks With Narrow Exceptions
On October 9th, Governor Brown signed AB 22 into law. Effective January 1, 2011, the new law prohibits the use of a consumer credit report for employment purposes, with certain exceptions listed below.
New California Law Discourages Independent Contractors and Sole Proprietorships by Potentially Penalizing Businesses that Use Their Services
In the last hours of his opportunity to veto new legislation, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 459. Similar to a bill previously vetoed by former Governor Schwarzenegger and dubbed the "Job Killer Act" by business, SB 459, effective January 1, 2012, might be called by some critics the "Small Business Killer Act." Championed by organized labor and supported by Democratic legislators, the practical consequences could prove to discourage businesses from utilizing independent contractors based in California, while also discouraging service-providing sole proprietorships and other independent contractors from providing services to other businesses in California.
California Employers Beware of Misclassifying Workers as Independent Contractors
On October 9, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law imposing monetary penalties on employers that “willfully” misclassify workers as independent contractors. S.B. 459 takes effect on January 1, 2012. Employers who violate this law will be fined a civil penalty between $5,000 and $15,000 for each violation. If the company engages in a “pattern or practice” of “willful” misclassification, it will be fined from a low of $10,000 to a maximum of $25,000.
A New Document Required for California "New Hires"
Executive Summary : Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill 469 which adds Section 2810.5 to the California Labor Code. This new law becomes effective January 1, 2012, compelling private employers to add a new document to their new hire package.
Credit Checks In California Now Tougher Than Ever
Effective January 1, 2012, California employers will have to avoid yet another potential legal hazard that haunts businesses with the threat of costly penalties: the unauthorized use of consumer credit reports regarding job applicants and current employees.
Legal Alert: California's New Law Imposes Stiff Penalties on Employers who Misclassify Employees as Independent Contractors
California's Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bill that will dramatically increase penalties for employers who willfully misclassify employees as independent contractors. The new law compels a $5,000 to $25,000 fine for each violation and also prohibits companies from charging fees or making any other deductions from the pay of independent contractors who have misclassified.
New California Law Greatly Restricts Employers Ability to Obtain and Use Credit Reports
Effective January 1, 2012, California will impose significant restrictions on an employer’s ability to obtain a credit report for employment purposes.
California Joins States Restricting Use of Credit Reports for Employment Purposes
On October 10, 2011, the Office of California Governor Jerry Brown announced that Governor Brown had signed AB 22, legislation that adds a new provision to the California Labor Code and amends the state's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA)1 to restrict the discretion that private and public sector employers have to use "consumer credit reports"2 for hiring and personnel decisions. Together, the new laws, which take effect on January 1, 2012, limit when employers lawfully can use consumer credit reports and impose notice and disclosure obligations on employers who intend to do so.
California Rules for Hirer of Independent Contractor in Contractor’s Employee’s Suit Based on Claimed Safety Violation by Hirer
When an employer in California hires an independent contractor, what duty, if any, does the hirer owe to the contractor’s employee injured on the job? Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, their remedy is limited to workers’ compensation. They cannot sue the contractor or the party that hired the contractor. This applies even where the on-the-job injury is allegedly caused by the hirer’s failure to comply with workplace safety requirements concerning the precise subject matter of the contract between the hirer and the independent contractor, the California Supreme Court has ruled, giving Golden State employers a small victory. Seabright Ins. v. US Airways, No. S182508 (Aug. 22, 2011). By hiring the independent contractor, the Court explained, the hirer implicitly delegates to the contractor any tort law duty it owes to the contractor’s employees to ensure the safety of the specific workplace that is the subject of the contract.
California Supreme Court Limits Employer Liability to IC's Employees
Typically, when an organization hires a vendor / independent contractor, the hiring organization is not liable to the vendor's employees when something goes wrong. The vendor/contractor is the "employer" responsible to its own employees.
California Court Finds Labor Law Loophole In U.S. Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling
Employee arbitration agreements must be carefully drafted in California, because courts scrutinize them and often refuse to enforce them when they find “unfair” provisions. For example, California courts do not typically enforce “class action waivers” whereby employees signing arbitration agreements. forfeit the right to participate in class action claims. Will this change in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion? Maybe not, as we saw in a new California appellate court case, Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Store Co.
California Appellate Court Strikes Arbitration Agreement in Employee Handbook as Unconscionable
Reversing an order compelling arbitration, the California Court of Appeal has held that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook was unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion, failed to give adequate notice of the arbitration rules that will apply, and lacked mutuality. Thus, the Court held that the agreement was unenforceable and ordered the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration.
BE WARY ABOUT WAIVERS IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
California courts profess to favor arbitration as a means to resolve disputes, including those between employers and employees. When an employer enters into an arbitration agreement with an employee, the employer is generally looking for a lower cost, faster, and more informal method of resolving disputes that does not involve the unpredictability of a jury.
Arbitration Agreement Update Employee Entitled to Labor Commissioner Hearing Despite Signing Arbitration Agreement.
In recent case titled Sonic-Calabasas A Inc. v. Moreno, the California Supreme Court considered whether employers may require employees to submit wage and hour claims to binding arbitration rather than the state’s Labor Commissioner.
California Supreme Court Rules That Arbitration Agreements May Not Preclude Employees’ Right to An Administrative Hearing
In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that arbitration agreements between employers and employees are not enforceable to the extent that they require employees to arbitrate their wage claims before they have a non-binding administrative hearing before the State Labor Commissioner (known as a “Berman” hearing). The state high court held that any preclusion of an employee’s right to a Berman hearing violates public policy and is, therefore, unconscionable, and that the court’s holding was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
California Supreme Court Holds No Arbitration in Lieu of Labor Commissioner Hearing
The California Supreme Court decided that an employer cannot require an employee to go to arbitration instead of a "Berman" hearing before the Labor Commissioner.
Medical Pot at Work - It's Back!
The California state senate apparently is taking up another attempt to stop "discrimination" against the stoned at work. (Yes, there are some exceptions, e.g., they can't be too stoned - impaired - or work at a safety sensitive job).
Arbitration Fail: Employer Who Should Have Handed Out Arbitration Rule Book Now Faces A Jury
Over the years courts have scrutinized the terms of employer/employee arbitration agreements, sometimes finding certain terms to be too unfair to the employee. Formulating enforceable terms of an employer-employee arbitration agreementthat is, an agreement that the courts will agree to upholdhas been very challenging. A recent California appellate court case titled Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corporation addressed the question of whether presenting an arbitration agreement referencing AAA rules, without including a copy of the rules, was so unfair as to void the agreement.
California Court Rules Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable, Company Didn't Give Employee AAA Rules
Showing continued hostility toward employee arbitration agreements, the California Court of Appeal has struck down as unconscionable an arbitration agreement because the employer failed to provide the high-level employee a copy of the arbitration rules referenced in the agreement.
THIS BUD'S FOR ME, BOSS
Proposition 19, called the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010," will be on the ballot this November. The initiative, among other things, would legalize adult possession and personal consumption of small quantities of marijuana.
Independent Contractor Update: Drivers Are Employees Despite Independent Contract.
When it comes to making some kinds of workers independent contractors, the old saying about putting lipstick on a pig comes to mind. Sometimes an employee is an employee no matter how he is dressed up to look like an independent contractor. A transportation company found this to be the case in a recent decision published by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Drivers Are Employees Despite Independent Contract.
When it comes to making some kinds of workers independent contractors, the old saying about putting lipstick on a pig comes to mind. Sometimes an employee is an employee no matter how he is dressed up to look like an independent contractor. A transportation company found this to be the case in a recent decision published by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
What California Employers Need To Know About New Federal Lactation Accommodation.
We already have it here in California, and now it has become a right under federal law: lactation accommodation.
California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Judicial Review of Awards Affecting Unwaivable Statutory Employment Claims and FAA Preemption of Administrative Adjudication
On April 26, 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration award may be vacated when the arbitrator makes a clear error of law which deprives an individual of a hearing on the merits of an unwaivable statutory employment claim. The Supreme Court separately held that arbitration agreements covered by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") may lawfully restrict employees from seeking administrative adjudication of claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").
The Continuing Saga of Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements in California.
On April 26, the California Supreme Court issued a decision providing useful clarification to employers intending to revise or enforce existing mandatory arbitration agreements. In summary, the court ruled that: (1) clear error of law will serve as a basis for vacating an arbitrators award where the error deprives an employee of a hearing on the merits of their Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims or other unwaivable statutory claims; (2) arbitration agreements may lawfully preclude employees from pursuing administrative adjudication of their state law claims; and (3) in FEHA cases, the Supreme Courts prior holding in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. requires that arbitrators state reasons for their written decisions in sufficient detail to provide a meaningful basis for judicial review mere written conclusions are not enough.
EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING IN CALIFORNIA.
Former Major League Baseball player Mark McGwires recent admission that he used steroids throughout his career came as no surprise in a profession plagued by similar problems. While McGwire ostensibly used the drugs to enhance his performance, employers generally fear a decrease in performance when their employees use illegal drugs.
EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS: OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW.
Every employment lawyer has had the experience of asking a client for a copy of her employee handbook, only to be given an old, coffee-ring stained document, cobbled together in different typefaces, only partially contained in a three-ring binder.
Use of Contractors Carries Hidden Risk for Businesses (pdf).
If you hire a contractor to perform construction,
farm labor, garment, janitorial, or security
services, there is a huge financial risk you need
to know about. Under a little known provision
in the California Labor Code, your company
could be held liable to the contractors employees
in the event the contractor skirts its labor
law obligations.
NEW CALIFORNIA MILITARY LEAVE.
Governor Schwarzenegger just signed into law AB 485 - "Civil Air Patrol: California Wing: Employment Leave".
California and Federal Law Regarding Teenage Employment During The Summer.
As the school year ends in a few days, teenagers are looking for summer jobs. Make sure you are aware of state and federal laws regulating the employment of minors.
THE WORK SHARING PROGRAM: AN ALTERNATIVE TO LAYOFFS.
Employers facing tough economic times are sensitive to the impact layoffs have on their employees. To avoid eliminating jobs, some employers look for other cost-cutting measures that distribute the financial burden across the workforce. One option for employers serious about cutting payroll costs is to reduce work hours for non-exempt employees.
Plumbing Contractor Not Liable For Former Employees Criminal Act.
When a company negligently hires and retains a worker with dangerous propensities, it can be held liable for harm that the worker causes to customers, co-workers, or others. What if the employee commits the act after he is terminated? A recent California appellate court addressed this issue in a case titled Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc.
Arbitration Update: California Court Trashes Waste Disposal Companys Arbitration Agreement.
A California appellate court has refused to enforce an employer/employee arbitration agreement in a wage and hour class action involving meal and rest periods.
Starbucks Lawsuit Highlights Need to Review Employment Applications.
A California Appeals Court recently sent a stern wake-up call to any employer using a one size fi ts all job application. A major employer was sued over a fairly typical and, in most states, lawful question in its employment application asking for the applicants criminal conviction history. Because an unusual California law forbids inquiries into certain minor drug offenses, the court put a spotlight on the risk of not customizing employment applications to conform to individual state laws.
Starbucks Marijuana Claim Goes Up In Smoke.
Almost every employer uses some form of written job application. However, many employers are unaware of legal requirements governing what types of questions a job seeker may be asked. Employers who do not follow these rules face stiff penalties and expensive compliance lawsuits.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER SIGNS BILL OUTLAWING TEXTING OR E-MAILING WHILE DRIVING
California's hands-free cell phone law went into effect on July 1, 2008. Under that law, drivers are prohibited from using handheld wireless telephones while driving, unless the device allows for hands-free listening and talking.
Know The Voting Leave Law For Election Day!
Election Day is fast approaching on November 3, 2008. California law requires employers, in limited circumstances, to allow employees time off to vote. The law also requires employers to post a notice of this right. Some of our clients have reported that employees assume that they are absolutely entitled to paid time off on election day, but that is not the case. Our FAQ explains the rules.
Independent Contractors Update: Worker Deemed Independent Contractor; Wrongful Termination Claims Fail.
One of the advantages of hiring properly classified independent contractors is that they have no standing to file employee lawsuits alleging wrongful termination, certain discrimination claims, and other causes of action that are dependent on employee status.
Arbitration Agreement Covers USERRA Claim; Will California Courts Follow?
Employee arbitration agreements are a good way to keep lawsuits out of court. There are pros and cons to using such agreements. But where employers elect to use arbitration agreements, they usually seek to cover all types of employee claims.
Cal Labor Commissioner Cites Company For Not Providing Lactation Accommodation To Employee.
In 2002, the California legislature amended the Labor Code to mandate that employers provide lactation accommodation. Yes, we regulate everything here in the Golden State. In the six years following enactment of the law, no known enforcement actions had been initiated. Hopefully the reason is because employers have been complying with the law.
Employers Have New Role In Cell Phone Driving Law (pdf).
On July 1, 2008, the long awaited California
Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act finally
goes into effect. The new law prohibits drivers
over age 18 from using handheld wireless telephones
while driving, unless the device allows for
hands-free listening and talking. Drivers under the
age of 18 will be prohibited from using wireless
telephones altogether, even if employing a handsfree
device, and from using mobile
service devices such as
Blackberries,a pagers and laptops.
Employers Have New Role In Cell Phone Driving Law (pdf).
On July 1, 2008, the long awaited California
Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act finally
goes into effect. The new law prohibits drivers
over age 18 from using handheld wireless telephones
while driving, unless the device allows for
hands-free listening and talking. Drivers under the
age of 18 will be prohibited from using wireless
telephones altogether, even if employing a handsfree
device, and from using mobile
service devices such as
Blackberries,a pagers and laptops.
California Law Banning Cell Phone Use While Driving Takes Effect July 1.
Californias law banning the use of cell phones while driving goes into effect July 1, 2008. The California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act imposes a minimum $20 fine for anyone caught driving and using a cell phone unless the driver uses a headset, ear bud or other technology that frees both hands. The fine increases to $50 for subsequent violations. Drivers under 18 are prohibited from using cell phones while driving even if a hands-free device is used, and are also prohibited from using mobile service devices such as Blackberries, pagers and laptops.
Put Down That Cell Phone!
A new California statute that prohibits motorists from using a hand-held cellular telephone while driving becomes effective July 1, 2008. Motorists who are 18 years of age or older may use a "hands-free" device while driving. Motorists under age 18 are not permitted to talk on a cell phone at all while driving, whether via a hands-free device or otherwise. This prohibition only applies to drivers, not to passengers. There will be a $20 fine for the first violation and $50 per violation for subsequent offenses. The only exception in the law is for calls made during emergencies to 911 or a health-care provider.
Political Activity at Work: What are the Limits?
Whether the subject matter is a large sporting event or upcoming presidential election, employees naturally bring their opinions, passions, loyalties and arguments into the workplace. As the November 2008 presidential election approaches, the candidates, the political parties, and the various media will continue to stir thought and debate among the nations voters, most of whom report to a job site.
One Toke Over The Line.
The California electorate approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, in 1996. The initiative expressly protects certain users of marijuana for medical reasons from prosecution under two specific criminal laws. The initiative did not address a number of issues, however, including what happens when marijuana metabolites are revealed by a pre-employment drug test. Twelve years passed before the California Supreme Court weighed in on that question. In Ross v. RagingWire Telecomm. Inc., 2008 DJDAR 1217 (Cal. Jan. 24, 2008), the court held that Proposition 215 provides no employment law protection to medical-marijuana users. As a result, unless there is legislative action by the electorate or the Legislature, disability-discrimination and drug-testing laws are not affected by Proposition 215.
California's New Leave for Military Spouses.
On October 9, 2007, the Governor signed a bill allowing spouses of military personnel to take unpaid time off during the other spouses leave from deployment. California Military and Veterans Code section 395.10 was passed as emergency legislation and went into effect immediately. The stated intent of the new law is to serve the families of those troops currently serving in military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to assure that these families are able to spend time together during the qualified [spouses] leave from deployment.
Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Not Enforceable .
In another important case affecting the use and application of arbitration agreements in the employment setting, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a provision in an employment arbitration agreement waiving the employees right to pursue a class action was unenforceable.
Employers Need to Take Reasonable Measures to Maintain Secrecy of Information They Want to Protect (scroll down).
In San Jose Construction, Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc. the California Court of Appeal looked at the issue of whether information taken by an employee upon his departure from a construction company constituted trade secrets.
California Court of Appeals Holds that Employers Arbitration Agreement with a Class Action Waiver Is Invalid.
A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal emphasizes the importance of a valid arbitration agreement between employers and employees. In Murphy v. Check N Go (10/17/2007), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts decision to deny an employers motion to compel arbitration based upon an unconscionable arbitration agreement. Importantly, the Court of Appeal determined that the class action waiver provision of the agreement was unconscionable.
California Adopts Military Spouse Leave Law
Effective immediately, California employers must, under certain circumstances, provide up to ten days of unpaid leave to employees who have spouses in the military.
California Supreme Court Restricts Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements (scroll down).
In Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate courts denial of a writ of mandate upholding a class arbitration waiver, and held that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are unenforceable if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating employees rights than individual arbitration.
Undermining Arbitration.
The California Supreme Court's Aug. 30 decision in Gentry v. Superior Court tightens the courts' reins on "pre-dispute" agreements to arbitrate employment law claims. A pre-dispute arbitration agreement, by definition, is one to which the parties agree before any dispute between them has arisen.
California Supreme Court Restricts Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements (scroll down).
In Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate courts denial of a writ of mandate upholding a class arbitration waiver, and held that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are unenforceable if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating employees rights than individual arbitration.
Employers Are Required To Provide A Safe And Secure Workplace Against Threats Of Violence.
In Franklin v. The Monadnock Co., the California Court of Appeal found that an employees allegations that public policies require employers to provide a safe and secure workplace and encourage employees to report credible threats of violence in the workplace were sufficient to state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Law Firms Own Arbitration Policy Found Unconscionable (scroll down).
In Davis v. OMelveny & Myers LLP, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a law firms arbitration program covering all employees of the firm is unenforceable under California law because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
California Court of Appeal Validates Arbitration Agreement Covering Claims for Unpaid Bonus and Severance.
Does the Federal Arbitration Act preempt claims for unpaid wages under California law?
Employers Gain Immunity From Employees' Misues of Company's Internet Access.
Advances in technology, particularly the Internet, continue to influence employment law. The new ways in which employees obtain information and communicate with others have revolutionized the workplace. Change has come so fast that employers, legislators, and the courts are playing an increasingly challenging game of catch-up. The desire to manage risk via control of employees activities not only is hampered by the ingenuity of new technology, but also by the desire not to impair the free flow of ideas and information that have made these advances possible.
Can Employees Waive Class-Action Arbitration Agreements.
Employers understand employment litigation in court entails expense, delay, and uncertainty. Seeking to avoid a jurys evaluation of workplace decisions, some employers have turned to alternative dispute resolution programs (called ADR). ADR can involve internal complaint procedures, mediation, and arbitration. In principle, both employers and employees can benefit from the faster and less formal procedures associated with ADR.
Initiation of Pre-Arbitration Procedures Do Not Satisfy Exhaustion Requirement.
Discusses Swiderski v. Milberg, Wise, Bershad, Hines & Lerach, LLP, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13047 (Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div 1, Dec. 18, 2001), in which the court dismissed a wrongful termination based on an arbitration agreement.
