By Calvin House | Published October 5, 2008 | Posted in Uncategorized |
Over the past few years, workplace bullying and microinequities not obviously based on protected characteristics have received much attention. Although the California Workers’ Compensation Act preempts civil lawsuits for such claims unless a recognized exception to preemption applies, such conduct can pose liability risks. Such matters have been the subject of law firm commentary and an entire website. Read More
Read MoreA recent $18.5 million settlement points up the potential liability for employers who do not promptly pay departing employees all wages owed. The settlement with the corporate owner of Albertson’s, Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drugs, allocates $15 million for compensation of approximately 200,000 class members and $3.5 million for attorney’s fees and costs. Ward v. Albertson’s, Read More
Read MoreOne of the California Courts of Appeal has rejected the common wisdom about the meal period rule. While other courts and the Labor Commissioner have ruled that employers must ensure (that is, force) employees to take their 30-minute meal periods, the San Diego Division of the Fourth District has ruled it sufficient for employers to Read More
Read MoreA recent decision from the California Court of Appeal in San Francisco demonstrates how hard employers must work to avoid liability under the disability discrimination laws. The Court ruled that the plaintiff employee was entitled to a trial on her disability claims because there was some evidence that the employer had not tried hard enough Read More
Read MoreA federal statute that became law on August 14 provides remedies against employers for employees who suffer adverse employment action for having complained about unsafe consumer products made or sold by their employer. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 establishes an administrative complaint procedure backed by the possibility of a civil lawsuit if the Read More
Read MoreEmployees do not leave their religious beliefs behind when they go to work. But, those beliefs seldom matter to employers or fellow employees. Where religious beliefs affect dress or appearance, there may be an impact in the workplace. There may be conflicts with the employer’s practices and policies or with other employees. Religious beliefs may Read More
Read MoreAt the beginning of the year, the Family and Medical Leave Act was amended to to permit an eligible employee who is a “spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin” to take up to 26 workweeks of leave to care for a “member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the National Guard or Reserves, Read More
Read MoreTwo recent verdicts from California Superior Court juries illustrate the risk of retaliation liability that arises in the wake of employee complaints about mistreatment. It is not uncommon for employers to prove that a discrimination, harassment or other employment claim lacks merit, only to be held liable because the complainant suffered adverse employment consequences after Read More
Read MoreThe California Supreme Court has conclusively ruled that non competition agreements with employees are invalid in California. The August 7, 2008 decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP put to rest the notion that there might be a narrow restraint exception to the bar contained in Business and Professions Code section 16600, as suggested by the Ninth Read More
Read MoreIn The News Since the failure of immigration reform in 2007, U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) has stepped up its efforts to bring employers into compliance with existing immigration and citizenship rules. Employers must take these efforts seriously, because failure to comply with the rules can lead to prison time. As described by Read More
Read More