Labor Code

Subscribe to Labor Code via RSS

A radio program employee who faced substantial liability arising from a tragic on-air “water drinking contest” that ended in a tragic death was named an individual defendant in the survivors’ lawsuit.  The employer offered to defend the employee with a competent attorney of its choosing.  However, the employee took the position that Labor Code section…

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…

Ketchikan Drywall Services v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 11-73105 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2013):  Ouch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld $172,000 in penalties against the employer for failing to maintain correctly completed I-9 Forms.  The employer argued that it substantially complied with the law by copying the relevant…

On Wednesday the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions that expand same-sex marriage rights. In the first, United States v. Windsor, the Court ruled unconstitutional a law denying federal recognition of legally-married same-sex couples. In the second, Hollingsworth, et al. v. Perry, the Court…   Click here to read the full article.

In Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013), the United States Supreme Court defined “supervisory” authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962 as requiring the power to make “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or…

The California Supreme Court has just ruled that Los Angeles County must provide the union representing its employees under an “agency shop” agreement with the home addresses and telephone numbers of all county employees, including non-union employees. County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm’n (Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 721), No. …

Score one for Washington in a recent dispute between competing employers from Washington and California.  In Meras Engineering, Inc. v. CH20, Inc., a Northern District of California Court enforced a forum selection clause designating Washington as the venue for all disputes — rejecting the California parties’ argument that litigating in Washington would defeat California’s…

Most litigation over whether employees are classified properly as exempt from overtime turns on whether employees spend the majority of their work time performing exempt duties. However, employers should not forget the salary basis requirement. In Negri v. Koning & Associates, No. H037804 (Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2013), the California Court of Appeal…