In Applied Materials v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Company, the federal district court for the Northern District of California refused to enforce an invention assignment clause that required former employees to assign inventions disclosed within one year of termination of employment if the invention related to work performed by the employee for the employer....more
The Department of Labor has just released several model notices (including election forms) to reflect the new COBRA subsidy requirements of ARRA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009....more
Although the swine flu outbreak appears to have peaked (for the time being), employers should nevertheless remain vigilant and take the following proactive steps to deal with a potential full blown pandemic...more
In 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that provisions in collective bargaining agreements requiring union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act can bar private lawsuits by aggrieved employees....more
The Department of Labor has just released several model notices (including election forms) to reflect the new COBRA subsidy requirements of ARRA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009....more
A group of Oracle employees who resided outside California but traveled into the state periodically to perform work for Oracle sued the company, claiming that they were entitled to the benefits of California's more favorable overtime laws....more
On February 17, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA") into law. This stimulus package provides significant health care continuation coverage relief for lower- and moderate-income employees who are involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009...more
President Obama has signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ("Fair Pay Act"), which provides that an unlawful employment practice occurs not only when an employer makes a discriminatory decision about the employee';s compensation, but each time an employee receives a paycheck or other compensation affected by the discrimination....more
Although Starbucks has been the target of numerous class action lawsuits in the U.S., the company defeated plaintiffs in one recent class action arising out of the criminal background question in its job application....more
The case of Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court, currently pending before the California Supreme Court, may dramatically affect the manner in which clients interact with and utilize their lawyers....more
In current economic times, more and more companies are turning to "reductions in force" or "RIFs." While RIFs can provide both short and long-term economic benefits, they are also among the most difficult events an attorney or human resources professional must oversee because of the emotional and economic impact they will have on employees...more
The California Supreme Court recently granted review of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, in which a Court of Appeal held that an employer's obligation to "provide" rest and meal breaks to employees means only that the employer must make such breaks available to employees...more
As of September 30, 2008, exempt computer professionals in California can be paid a minimum of $75,000 per year for full-time employment on a salaried basis, rather than the previous requirement of at least $36 per hour...more
Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. is the latest court decision to highlight the often complex intersection between disability and medical leave laws...more
California DLSE: Employers Must Make Meal and Rest Breaks Available, Need Not Ensure Employees Take Breaks—and Yet Another Court Agrees; California Supreme Court Confirms Non-competes are Unenforceable in California, Eases Requirements on Releases; NLRB Strikes Down Firing of Employee Who Breached an Illegal Confidentiality Provision; News Bites...more
The California Supreme Court has ruled in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, ___ Cal. 4th ___ , 2008 Cal. LEXIS 9618 (Cal. Aug. 7, 2008) (No. S147190), that non-competition agreements in California are invalid under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 ("Section 16600")...more
In a victory for California employers, a California appellate court ruled that an employer's duty to "provide" rest and meal breaks to employees means that the employer need only make such breaks available to employees, and not that it ensure that employees actually take such breaks. more
In Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company, police officer Quon sued a wireless company and his employer City of Ontario for violating his privacy by accessing his personal text messages sent by way of an employer-provided pager. more
In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, the United States Supreme Court decided (in a 7-2 vote) that 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which was enacted shortly after the Civil War as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to prohibit race discrimination, also encompasses claims of retaliation in employment. more
In a victory for employers, a California appellate court confirmed owners, officers, and managing agents' limited personal liability under California law for a corporation's failure to pay wages. more
In a victory for employers, the California Supreme Court held in a 4-3 decision in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership that supervisors cannot be held personally liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). more
In Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, the United State Supreme Court held that "me too" evidence of discrimination is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible in an age discrimination lawsuit... more
In a significant ruling for employers, the California Supreme Court recently held that an employer is not required to accommodate an employee who uses medical marijuana. more
The NLRB ruled in The Guard Publishing Company,dba The Register Guard that employers may enforce a policy that prohibits employees from using employer email for "non-job-related solicitations" (including union organizing efforts), so long as they do so in a non-discriminatory manner. more
In Mokler v. County of Orange, a California Court of Appeal held there was sufficient evidence to support a plaintiff's retaliatory dismissal claim, but rejected her sexual harassment claim as not being sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. more
Effective January 1, 2008, the minimum hourly rate for exempt computer software professionals will be $36, down from this year’s minimum of $49.77. more
In a decision narrowing the scope of the administrative exemption, a California Court of Appeal held in Harris v. Superior Court that insurance claims adjusters were improperly classified under the administrative exemption because they performed "production" rather than administrative work. more
In an unusual decision specifically addressing a "no-hire clause," a California appellate court articulated some guidelines as to the enforceability of such provisions. more
In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee's Title VII claim for sex discrimination — based on allegations of unequal pay compared to her male peers - was untimely because she waited several years following the allegedly discriminatory acts to bring her claim. more
Employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees must comply with new Employer Information Report (EEO-1) requirements, including a revised report form that must be used in 2007 and revised collection and reporting requirements for 2008. more
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that the hour of pay to which non-exempt employees are entitled when they are denied a meal or rest period constitutes a wage, not a penalty. more
In Cintas Corp. v. NLRB, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that an employer committed an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by simply publishing its policy on confidentiality, even though the rule did not expressly forbid protected discussions nor was there evidence that the rule was used to prohibit protected activity. more
In Walton v. U.S. Marshall Service, the Ninth Circuit clarified the legal standard for establishing a "regarded as" disability discrimination claim. Naomi Walton, a court security guard, was terminated from her employment after failing to meet her employer's hearing standard. more
A California court of appeal recently clarified
which kinds of conduct will support a hostile work environment harassment
claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). more
Although employee misuse of the internet is still rife with potential liability for employers, a recent California appellate court decision reduces the risk, at least as to one potential source of liability. more
