• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Affiliate Login
  • Join Our Network
  • Affiliate News
  • Lawyer Directory
  • Newsletters
  • Contact Us
  • Our Feeds

Employment Law Information Network

All Things Labor and Employment Law

Get Our Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice
Daily Newsletter
Weekly Newsletter
California Newsletter
  • Federal Articles
  • State Articles
  • HR News
  • Trending
  • Human Resources
    • HR Guidebook
    • HR Policy Samples
    • Employment Contracts
  • Discussion Forums
  • About Us
Home > State Law Articles > California > Lawyering (CA)

Articles Discussing The Practice Of Employment Law In California.

Failure to Keep Up with Technology Could Lead to Ethics Violation

July 22, 2015 | Goldberg Segalla Filed Under: Lawyering (CA)

Technology is rapidly changing the manner in which businesses operate. This is equally true for professionals, who must incorporate and adapt to technological advances in order to thrive in a competitive marketplace. However, keeping up to date with technology is not merely a matter of protecting the bottom line. Professionals who fail to stay on the cutting edge could violate ethics rules and jeopardize their client’s interests.

Pleadings for Underfunded Contract under State Law Must be Sufficiently Detailed, California Court Rules

February 14, 2014 | Jackson Lewis Filed Under: Lawyering (CA)

Jackson Lewis

Section 2810 of the California Labor Code prohibits businesses from entering into contracts for certain services, such as security and janitorial services, where the contracting party “knows or should know” the contract does not include enough funds to allow the contractor to comply with applicable labor laws. But mere boilerplate allegations are not enough, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. It dismissed a putative class action against several airlines for alleged unpaid wages, overtime and uniform reimbursement due to employees of a defunct security services firm because employee’s complaint for violations of the statute failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. Hawkins v. TACA Int’l Airlines, S.A., et al., No. B242769 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2014).

Plaintiffs Can Communicate with Defendant’s Employees in California False Claims Action, Court Rules

March 27, 2013 | Jackson Lewis Filed Under: Lawyering (CA)

Jackson Lewis

California’s Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibit an attorney, directly or indirectly, from communicating with a represented party, including the party’s employees. However, this rule did not apply to prohibit communications between two qui tam plaintiffs and the defendant-employer’s current employees, the California Court of Appeal has held in a case under the California False Claims Act (FCA). San Francisco United Sch. Dist. ex. rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc., No. A134405 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2013). Vacating the injunction granted by the trial court, the Court also ruled that the injunction violated the state law’s prohibition against employer interference with employee communications and raised First Amendment concerns.

California Court Reverses $1.1 Million Pregnancy Discrimination Verdict

January 14, 2013 | Jackson Lewis Filed Under: Lawyering (CA)

Jackson Lewis

A trial court erred in not instructing the jury that the employer’s possible error in business judgment is not tantamount to a discriminatory motive in a female job applicant’s pregnancy discrimination case under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., Nos. A129535 & A131660 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2012). The Court also held that the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury regarding the potential harm to the female job applicant’s unborn child was erroneous. Accordingly, the Court reversed a jury verdict of $113,830 and an attorney’s fee award of approximately $1.1 million in favor of the applicant, returned the case to the trial court and ordered a new trial.

Certain Witness Statements Protected by Attorney Work Product Privilege, California High Court Rules

July 5, 2012 | Jackson Lewis Filed Under: Lawyering (CA)

Jackson Lewis

Recordings of witness interviews conducted by investigators employed by counsel and the identity of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements are subject to at least a qualified work product protection, the California Supreme Court has ruled. Coito v. Superior Court, No. S181712 (Cal. Jun. 25, 2012). In addition, the Court held such statements and information could be subject to absolute privilege if disclosure would reveal an attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case. The Court reversed an order compelling discovery and returned the case to the trial court.

California Appellate Court Rejects Automatic Attorneys’ Fees to an Employee who Successfully Defends Against Lawsuit by Employer

October 25, 2011 | Littler Filed Under: Lawyering (CA)

Littler

California Labor Code section 2802 generally requires employers to indemnify their employees for losses the employee incurs within the scope of employment. As one common example, section 2802 requires an employer to indemnify an employee for attorneys’ fees if the employee is sued by a third party, such as a customer, concerning conduct that falls within the scope of employment. But what about legal fees incurred by an employee in defending against a lawsuit by the employer itself, such as for unfair competition or misappropriation of trade secrets?

Primary Sidebar

California Index

  • Age Discrimination (CA)
  • Class Actions (CA)
  • Disability Discrimination (CA)
  • Employee Benefits (CA)
  • Employment At-Will (CA)
  • Fair Employment And Housing Act (CA)
  • Family Leave (CA)
  • General (CA)
  • Health And Safety (CA)
  • Human Resources (CA)
  • Labor Law (CA)
  • Lawyering (CA)
  • Privacy Rights (CA)
  • Race Discrimination (CA)
  • Religious Discrimination (CA)
  • Restrictive Covenants (CA)
  • Sex Discrimination (CA)
  • Sexual Harassment (CA)
  • Trade Secrets (CA)
  • Wage & Hour (CA)
  • WARN Act (CA)
  • Whistleblowers (CA)
  • Workers' Compensation (CA)

Site Search

Connect With Us!

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Article Calander

March 2023
SMTWTFS
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
« Feb    

Trending Content

  • Employee Locker Policy
  • Employee Discipline Policy
  • Introduction To Employee Handbook Policy
  • Sample Employee Handbook Disclaimer
  • Employment At-Will Policy
  • Employee Benefits Policy
  • Attendance Policy
  • Birthday Pay Policy
  • Probationary Period Policy
  • Workplace Privacy and Confidentiality

Footer

Social Profiles

RSSTwitterFacebookLinkedin

Tags

ABC News (60) Axios (28) BBC (28) Benefits Pro (31) Bloomberg (356) Business Insider (45) CBS News (74) CNBC (192) CNN (106) EEOC (274) Entrepreneur (80) Evil HR Lady (544) Fast Company (132) Forbes (1001) Fortune (77) Fox News (26) GovExec (26) Harvard Business Review (762) HR Dive (34) Inc. (114) Jackson Lewis (29) Law.com (41) Littler (43) MarketWatch (31) MSN (134) NBC (61) NBC News (39) Newsweek (29) New York City (60) New York Post (53) New York Times (933) NPR (144) Philadelphia (26) Politico (40) Reuters (141) Richmond Times Dispatch (30) Seattle Times (29) SHRM (101) The Guardian (64) TIME (31) USA Today (88) US News (75) Wall Street Journal (384) Washington Post (194) Yahoo! News (113)

Navigation

  • Federal Articles
  • State Articles
  • HR News
  • Trending
  • Human Resources
    • HR Guidebook
    • HR Policy Samples
    • Employment Contracts
  • Discussion Forums
  • About Us
Log In

Privacy Policy, Disclaimers & Copyright
elinfonet.com, LLC • P.O. Box 45, Chinchilla, PA 18410 • 570-301-6277 • info@elinfonet.com