join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

California Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Discrimination Claim Barred if Employee Used Another’s Social Security Number When Applying for Position

The California Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in an appeal brought by a former employee who claims the lower courts incorrectly determined that his disability discrimination claim was barred because he misappropriated someone else’s Social Security number to apply for the job.

California Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Discrimination Claim Barred if Employee Used Another’s Social Security Number When Applying for Position

The California Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in an appeal brought by a former employee who claims the lower courts incorrectly determined that his disability discrimination claim was barred because he misappropriated someone else’s Social Security number to apply for the job.

California Chamber's Job Killer List - Employment Law

Contrary to what you may think, the California Legislature has not finished perfecting the laws governing the California workplace. But, they persevere.

California Court of Appeal Holds Employers Must Establish Interstate Commerce for FAA Preemption

In Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt. LLC (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2014), a California Court of Appeal held a former employee’s claim for unpaid wages were exempted from arbitration by California Labor Code section 229.

VIDEO RECORDING AND THE WORKPLACE

According to the Pew Research Center, about 58% of Americans own a smartphone, and 90% own a cellphone. Nearly every portable electronic device available to employees contains sophisticated video and audio recording capability. Anyone can become a mass distributor of recorded information on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Vine. Many of us record every-day events that would simply evaporate into history without cameras on our phones and the ability to mass-publish via the internet. So what does all this mean for the workplace?

Supervisor’s Conduct Supported Same-Sex Harassment Claim, California Court Rules

Finding an intern had produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude his supervisor engaged in a pervasive pattern of harassing conduct “because of sex,” including numerous gifts, frequent lunch purchases, along with sexual jokes and displays of pornographic computer images, the California Court of Appeal has allowed his harassment suit to proceed, reversing a lower court’s summary judgment against the plaintiff. Lewis v. City of Benicia, No. A134078 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2014). The Court further found the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the alleged harassment in the intern’s retaliation claim against the City of Benicia and ordered a retrial on the retaliation claim.

Undocumented Worker Case Before California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that could impact the ability of undocumented workers to collect back wages or sue employers for discrimination in California, and may prove instructive in other courts that periodically have to tackle these issues. The case is Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (Case No. S196568), and the California Supreme Court will consider whether an employee’s use of false documentation (in this case, a Social Security number) to obtain employment precludes future actions by that employee for discrimination (disability discrimination here).

California Corner: Employers Face New Heat for Missed Recovery Periods

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 435 expanded the scope of Cal. Labor Code Section 226.7 (known for providing premium pay for missed meal and rest periods) to require employers of outdoor workers to provide premium pay to employees who missed "recovery periods." A recovery period is defined as a "cooldown period afforded to employee to prevent heat illness."

The Alternative-Workweek: Oasis Or Mirage?

California employers are acutely aware of the typical schedule worked by employees: eight hours a day, five days a week. As we have become accustomed to doing, California law generally requires employers to pay employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of eight hours during any 24-hour period. But in many cases, limiting employees to working only eight hours a day is not the most convenient for either the employee or the Company. End of the story? Not so fast.

Messages on Government Officials’ Personal Devices and Private Accounts Not Subject to California Public Records Act

City of San Jose public officials’ communications sent and received on their personal electronic devices using private accounts need not be disclosed as they are not public records under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), the California Court of Appeal has ruled unanimously. City of San Jose v. Super. Ct. (Smith), No. H039498 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2014).