By Calvin House | Published July 31, 2011 | Posted in Uncategorized |
Search Site
Category Archive
Uncategorized
Employee Privacy
A recent decision by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco reminds that employers must be sure to protect employee privacy. In Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court, Case No. A131120 (Jul. 14, 2011), the court reversed an order granting discovery of individually-identifying personnel information in an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The question Read More
Read MorePrivate Attorney General and Class Action Waivers
A recent case alleging Labor Code violations by Ralphs Grocery Co. discusses the current state of the law regarding waivers of the right to pursue class actions and private attorney general claims. The arbitration policy at issue in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Case No. B222689 (2nd Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2011) provided for arbitration Read More
Read MoreDisability Claims Can Cost Millions
A recent $20 million EEOC settlement with Verizon illustrates the hazards that the disability laws pose for employers. According to the complaint in EEOC v. Verizon Maryland, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-01832-JKB (D. Md. Jul. 5, 2011), Verizon had a “no fault” attendance policy, which assigned “chargeable absences” to any absence except for certified leave under the Family Medical Leave Read More
Read MoreCalifornia Employers Must Pay California Overtime To Non-Resident Employees
Answering a question from the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court has ruled that employers based in California must abide by California overtime rules for non-California employees while they are working in California. Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., Case No. S170577 (Jun. 30, 2011). The plaintiffs worked for Oracle as instructors. Two were based in Colorado and one Read More
Read MoreDoes the Wal-Mart decision matter?
Business and employee advocates seem to agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (No. 10-277 June 20,2011) is a landmark decision of some sort. The U.S. Chamber of Commercesays that it “is without a doubt the most important class action case in more than a decade.” According to the ACLU, the decision “increases the Read More
Read MoreLight Duty Positions May Create Disability Discrimination Liability
A recent case illustrates the risks that employers encounter in placing employees in light duty positions. In Cuiellete v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B224303, a Los Angeles Police Officer received a 100 percent disability rating in a workers compensation proceeding, but asked to return to work at a desk job in the fugitive warrants Read More
Read MoreHelp DOL Review Its Regulations For Cost Savings
The U.S. Department of Labor is inviting the public to participate in a discussion about its plan to review existing regulations to determine whether they areoutmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome. This effort is part of the federal government’s commitment to ensure that agency regulations (1) take into account costs and benefits to society; (2) are Read More
Read MoreU.S. Supreme Court Allows Arizona To Revoke Licenses Of Employers Who Hire Illegal Immigrants
The United States Supreme Court made headlines this week by upholding an Arizona statute that punishes employers who hire illegal immigrants by revoking their business licenses. The statute also requires Arizona employers to use E-Verify, an internet-based system employers can use to check the work authorization status of employees. In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, No. Read More
Read MoreWhat Is A Commission?
The California wage orders exempt from the overtime rules “any employee whose earnings exceed one and one-half times the minimum wage if more than half that employee’s compensation represents commissions.” (See, for example, Wage Order No. 4, section 3(D).) Labor Codesection 204.1 defines “commission wages” as “compensation paid to any person for services rendered in the Read More
Read MoreEmployers Need Not Ensure Employees Take Meal Periods
California Labor Code section 512 bars employers from having an employee work more than five hours without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes. The wage orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission mimic that provision. See, for example, IWC Order No. 5, page 7, section 11. For years, controversy has raged Read More
Read More