Ogletree Deakins • March 11, 2014
Health care employers face myriad challenges in complying with numerous laws—with physician hospital staff privileges and whistleblower issues not least among them. On the privileges side, a well-developed body of law provides rigid requirements on both sides of the employer-hospital relationship. On the whistleblower side, claims continue to expand and increase at a rapid rate, developing the law at a sometimes breathtaking clip, even to the point, now, that these two areas of the law have collided. Advantage, whistleblower.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 10, 2014
Finding an employee’s lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) was “without merit[,] frivolous and vexatious,” the California Court of Appeal has affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $100,000 in favor of the employer. Robert v. Stanford Univ., No. H037514 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The Court further ruled that the trial court was not required to issue a separate written opinion to support its ruling.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • March 07, 2014
So far, as the second year of a two-year California legislative session, 2014 has been more noteworthy for what hasn’t happened, than for what has. The Legislature made no attempts to override any of the Governor’s 2013 end-of-session vetoes. Rather, legislators have re-introduced bills to try again to pass them and get the Governor’s signature, or to tweak previous unsuccessful proposals in an effort to win the Governor’s approval.
FordHarrison LLP • March 04, 2014
Executive Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the decision of a California state court, which held that a trial court should apply the factors set out in the California Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Gentry v. Superior Court to determine whether a pre-employment arbitration agreement containing a class-action waiver is enforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the state court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant (2013). See CarMax Auto Superstores California v. Fowler, No. 13-439 (February 24, 2014).
Ogletree Deakins • March 03, 2014
San Francisco Mayor Signs Ordinance to “Ban the Box” on Employment Applications and more....
Ogletree Deakins • February 27, 2014
I represent a national company with operations in California. A former employee recently filed a lawsuit against them in a California state court. After negotiating with opposing counsel, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the lawsuit after the action was filed but before trial.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 27, 2014
Private sector employers in the City of San Francisco will have to comply with new “ban the box” legislation restricting questions about applicants’ criminal records on applications for employment and during job interviews.
Ogletree Deakins • February 25, 2014
San Francisco has “banned-the-box” on employment applications and has added other restrictions on private employers’ ability to obtain and use criminal history information. The City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance number 131192 on February 11, 2014, and the mayor signed it on February 14, 2014. The ordinance will become effective on August 13, 2014. San Francisco joins Buffalo, Newark, Philadelphia, and Seattle as the fifth major municipality to “ban the box” on employment applications for private employers. Four states “ban the box”: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island.
Shaw Valenza LLP • February 24, 2014
Yes, you read that right.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • February 19, 2014
On February 11, 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed sweeping amendments to San Francisco Police Code, Article 49, and Administrative Code, Article 12 (“the amendments” or “the ordinances”) that significantly restrict the ability of covered employers to inquire into, and use, criminal records.