|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Court Reverses $1.4 Million Spanking Verdict Due To Flawed Jury Instructions.Ogletree Deakins - February 08, 2008 A state appellate court in California recently reversed a $1.4 million jury verdict in favor of an employee who claimed that she and others were spanked during company sales meetings. According to the California Court of Appeal, since the jury was not instructed that to prevail the employee had to show that the harassment occurred because she was female, the verdict could not stand. Orlando v. Alarm One, Inc., No. F050759, F051470, California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (January 14, 2008). Report Link Three Instances of Harassing Behavior Did Not Create A Hostile Work Environment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 15, 2007 In In Mokler v. County of Orange, the California Court of Appeal found that the conduct alleged by Pamela Mokler, a employee of the County of Orange, did not rise to the level of actionable sexual harassment. Report Link Lead Employee May Be a "Supervisor" in California Sexual Harassment Case.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 29, 2007 A lead employee may be a supervisor in determining liability for sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Denying the employer's motion for summary judgment, the District Court ruled that the plaintiff could proceed to trial on her claims that the employer was strictly liable for alleged sexual harassment by a lead employee. Although the lead had no authority to hire, fire, discipline, or transfer employees, factual disputes existed regarding his authority to direct employees and his influence on employment decisions.
Report Link Correctional Officer Fails to State A Prima Facie Case of Harassment or Disparate Treatment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2007 In Jones v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and against plaintiff Kim Jones on her claims for gender discrimination – hostile work environment; sexual harassment; race discrimination; unlawful retaliation; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligent supervision and retention of employees. Report Link California Supreme Court Approves Raunchy Talk as Part of the "Creative Workplace" EnvironmentLittler Mendelson, P.C. - April 25, 2006 Talking dirty can sometimes be a necessary part of the job, the California Supreme Court in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Prods., No. S125171 (April 20, 2006), unanimously ruled when it threw out sexual harassment claims made by a former writers' assistant on the NBC television show "Friends." The court sided with Warner Brothers and reversed a lower court ruling that would have allowed the case to proceed to trial. Report Link California Ruling on Workplace Romance Sends Employers Scrambling for Cover.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 09, 2005 When the California Supreme Court ruled late last month that employers are liable for a hostile work environment created when supervisors show job-related favoritism to their co-worker paramours, it wasn't just California employers that sounded the alarm. The decision attracted the attention of international media outlets, such as The Economist (see July 21, 2005) and The New York Times (see July 24, 2005). Report Link Workplace Romances Can Form Basis of Harassment Claims Under CA Law (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - July 25, 2005 On Tuesday, July 18, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Miller v. Department
of Corrections, an eagerly-anticipated decision pertaining to sexual harassment claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). According to Scott J. Witlin, a shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins, “[t]his decision weakens somewhat the long line of cases that held that favoritism toward a paramour was not discrimination against others.” Report Link Proactive Steps: Protecting Your Company Against Sexual Harassment ClaimsCooley Godward Kronish LLP. - April 14, 2005 Although most businesses have taken some measures to prevent sexual harassment, companies are held to a high standard, with California at the forefront, when it comes to addressing sexual harassment issues. Moreover, California law continues to refine its requirements for employers to proactively address sexual harassment. Thus, Companies are well advised to understand these developments in consultation with counsel in order to ensure they are implementing best practices in preventing and responding to claims of sexual harassment. Report Link Jury May Consider Employer's 'Creative Necessity' Defense Against Sexual Harassment Claim.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 07, 2005 Considering an unusual defense to a sexual harassment claim, the California Court of Appeal ruled an employee need not show the harassing conduct was directed at the employee personally, but must prove only that she/he witnessed the harassing conduct and it was in her/his immediate work environment. Report Link An Imperative for Employers: California Enacts Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 11, 2004 A new California law mandating sexual harassment prevention training, AB 1825, became effective on September 30, 2004. It requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisory employees every two years. Report Link California Does Not Recognize a Common Law Action for Sexual Harassment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - April 22, 2002 Discusses Medix Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Superior Ct., No. G029042, 2002 DAR 3377 (3/29/02 B Decision issued 3/27/02), in which the court ruled that California common law does not provide a cause of action for sexual harassment. Report Link Staring Can Constitute Sexual Harassment, Court of Appeal Holds [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - December 01, 2001 Discusses Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., No. A090680 (Cal. App. October 9, 2001), in which the court held that staring may constitute actionable sexual harassment.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 12NO 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