Insight & Commentary on California Workplace Law Issues & Developments
On May 22, 2014, a California District Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action covering about 1,500 female employees of Daiichi Sankyo Inc. (“DSI”) who allege the drug company paid them less than their male peers, ruling that the plaintiffs had met the low evidentiary burden to move forward collectively.
In SARA WELLENS, et al.,…
On May 15, 2014, the California Assembly passed a proposed amendment to California’s statute governing sexual harassment training.
Currently, the statute requires employers with 50 or more employees to ensure workplaces are free of sexual harassment by providing training to their supervisory employees at least once every two years. Such training must include information regarding…
On January 31, 2014, a California Appellate Court reversed an employer’s summary judgment despite well documented evidence of the employee’s history of poor performance. This decision—Cheal v. El Camino Hospital (No. HO36548)—addresses a pivotal question for employers: when can employers legitimately terminate a protected employee because of poor performance?
At the age of 61,…
Originally posted by SmartRecruiters Blog, the leading source for how to hire on the web. To view the original post, please click here.
So you’re a startup. You’ve decided to take your world-changing idea and move it out of your dorm room/garage/favorite-table-at-Starbucks and start a legitimate business. So what next?
If you plan on
…
On April 30, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Ronald El-Malik Curtis against the City of Oakland, and several individual city officials on the ground that facially-neutral conduct could support a finding of racial animus sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim when…
Timing is not everything. In Rope v. Auto-Chlor of Washington System of Washington, Inc., the employer fired an employee for purported performance reasons on December 30, 2010 – two days before California’s Michelle Malkin Donor Protection Act became effective. The timing was significant because when the employee was hired in October of 2010, he…
On October 10, 2013, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill, A.B. 556, to add “military and veteran status” to the list of categories protected from employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
When this bill becomes operative on January 1, 2014, the FEHA will prohibit harassment and discrimination in…
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (Cal. 2013), the California Supreme Court ruled that, to prevail in a mixed motive employment discrimination action, the employee must show that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision. Further, in mixed motive cases, if the employer proves that…
