California based employers who send workers from other states into California must pay the employees pursuant to California law, not the law of the state where those employees reside, according to the California Supreme Court ruling in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (SC S170577 6/30/11). The Supreme Court’s decision is a mixed bag of
Legal Articles
A Victory for Agricultural Employers: Governor Brown Vetoes the Controversial Union Election Bill SB 104
Agricultural employers received a victory when Governor Brown vetoed SB 104, the controversial bill which would have made it dramatically easier for unions to organize employers subject to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (“ALRA”). SB 104 was patterned, in part, after the Employee Free Choice Act which has stalled in Congress. SB 104 would …
Class Action Update: Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit Decision Involving Certification of Nationwide Class of 1.5 Million Female Workers
In a decision that many employers have been waiting for since the Ninth Circuit’s decision certifying a class of approximately 1.5 million women, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected class action certification in “one of the most expansive class actions ever.” See Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277 (June 20, 2011). The case involved allegations of gender discrimination…
The Ninth Circuit Has Revitalized The California Learned Professional Overtime Exemption and Remanded To A Jury Key Issues Under The Administrative Exemption
In 2009, companies who classified certain unlicensed accountants, engineers and other professions as exempt from overtime under the California Learned Professional Exemption were dealt a broadside by a federal District Court when it held that unlicensed accountants were categorically ineligible for the Learned Professional Exemption. The decision lead to numerous employers revaluating the Learned Professional…
Employers Receive Another Positive Meal Period Decision From an Appellate Court
Rest and meal period cases continue to make headlines in California while employers await the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant v. S. C., (review granted Oct. 22, 2008 (Brinker), and Brinkley v. Public Storage, (review granted Jan. 14, 2009 (Brinkley)).
In another positive decision for employers, the Second Appellate District Court upheld the…
Court Applies Alter Ego Doctrine to Determine Liability for Discrimination By Sole Shareholder as an Employer
individual, liability, FEHA, CFRA, “sole shareholder”, discrimination, “alter ego”, employer, employee…
Continue Reading Court Applies Alter Ego Doctrine to Determine Liability for Discrimination By Sole Shareholder as an Employer
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Does Not Protect Disclosures to The Media
The Ninth Circuit held today that the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1) (“SOX”), protects employees of publicly-traded companies who disclose certain information to three recipients: (1) federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies; (2) Congress; and, (3) employee supervisors. These three recipients are specifically enumerated in the law. The Court held that “leaks …
High Court Rules Against California’s Prohibition of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements
Continuing to uphold the enforcement of arbitration agreements, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the California courts’ refusal to enforce class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements on the ground that the state law is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (Apr. 27, 2011). The ruling would…
Updates From the Front Lines of California Class Action Litigation and Practical Lessons
An employer who is strategic and proactive in California wage and hour compliance can avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential liabilities and defense costs. For example, there is significant litigation regarding employment applications in California especially the limitations regarding criminal convictions set forth at California Labor Code Section 432.7, et seq. and Section…
Termination for Misconduct Involving Violent Acts or Threats of Violence Caused by a Disability Was Found to Be Lawful
A recent California Appellate Court upheld an employer’s right to terminate an employee for misconduct involving violent acts or threats of violence even if caused by a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In Wills v. Superior Court., No. G043054 (4th Appellate District April 13, 2011), the Court dismissed the…