By Calvin House | Published February 16, 2015 | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Arbitration Update
The California Supreme Court continues to make law on enforcement of arbitration agreements. In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 24 Cal.4th 83, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P. 3d 669 (2000), the Court ruled that an arbitration award on a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is not enforceable unless the arbitrator issue a written arbitration Read More
Read MoreDisputes over the enforceability of class action waivers are percolating in several forums. Most recently, the National Labor Relations Board has rejected federal courts of appeals rulings that upheld class action waivers against attacks that they violate the National Labor Relations Act. In Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 10-CA-038804 (Oct. 28, 2014), the Board ruled Read More
Read MoreCalifornia and the U.S. Supreme Court have been engaged in a vigorous back and forth regarding arbitration for many years. In Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984), the Supreme Court overturned a ban on arbitration imposed by the California Franchise Investment Law, because it violated the Federal Arbitration Act. That Act provides: “A written Read More
Read MoreSome employee lawyers have invoked antitrust laws to target large employers who allegedly have agreed not to solicit, or “poach,” employees from their competitors. The term got public attention in 2011, when a class action lawsuit filed against a number of tech companies, including Adobe, Google, Intel and Apple, alleged that they agreed not to Read More
Read MoreAlthough Domino’s Pizza exercises some control over the conditions at its franchisees’ pizza stores, it does not exercise enough control to qualify as the employer of those who work in the stores. So the California Supreme Court has ruled in a case alleging sexual harassment at a franchisee’s store. Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Case No. Read More
Read MoreAccording to a recent Court of Appeal decision, Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees who must use their personal cell phones for work-related calls. Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., Case No. B247160 (Aug. 12, 2014). Section 2802 provides: “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by Read More
Read MoreThe recent announcement by the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel that it has authorized complaints against McDonald’s USA for NLRA violations allegedly committed at franchised restaurants raises the general issue of potential franchisor liability for labor and employment violations by their franchisees. Reported decisions on the subject are scarce. In two cases decided over 45 years Read More
Read MoreRecent developments in California and federal law make clear that employers are going to have to consider reasonable accommodations under the disability laws for pregnant women who have impairments related to their pregnancies. Such accommodations may include unpaid time off or assignment to a light duty position while the pregnant employee is unable to perform Read More
Read MoreThe San Diego division of the Court of Appeal has confirmed that California employers may deduct from exempt employee leave banks for partial-day absences, without destroying the employee’s exemption. General Atomics provided its employees with a set amount of paid annual leave determined by the employee’s length of service. Employees could draw upon the paid Read More
Read MorePressure is mounting at the national, state and local levels to boost the minimum wage. There is pressure on the Los Angeles City Council to raise the minimum for the City to $15. On July 14, 2014, the San Diego City Council took the first step toward raising the minimum to $11.50 by January 2017. The federal minimum wage establishes Read More
Read More