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.
U.S. Supreme Court Adopts “But-For” Causation Test for Title VII Retaliation Cases.
In a welcome decision, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Ctr. v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (June 24, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be established using a “but-for” causation standard, denying the argument asserted by plaintiff and the EEOC that
U.S. Supreme Court narrows definition of “supervisor” for Title VII purposes. Will California courts follow?
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
Public Employer Required To Provide Union With Addresses and Phone Numbers of Union and Non-Union Employees Alike
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.
Forum Selection Clause Trumps California Public Policy. Really.
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
Don’t Forget the Salary Basis Test!
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
CBAs Must Clearly Spell Out Waiver of Unpaid Vacation
California law prohibits “use it or lose it” vacation policies and, under Section 227.3 of the California Labor Code, requires all accrued vacation to be paid on termination of employment, “unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement.” Examining the meaning of the collective bargaining exception for the first time, the California Court of Appeal
Handbook Policy Rescues Binding Arbitration Agreement
While employees continue to challenge binding arbitration agreements with gusto, California courts have shown a consistent willingness to enforce agreements where fundamental fairness exists. In Serpa v. California Surety Investigations, Inc., No. B237363 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2013), a California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying the employer’s motion to
Attorneys in Same Firm Cannot Act as Public Entity’s Advocate and Advisor in a Single Matter
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that public agencies are prohibited from using partners in the same law firm as an advocate in a contested matter and as an advisor to the decision maker in the same matter, even if the law firm has established an ethical wall between the partners. Sabey v. City
When Close isn’t Close Enough – Appeals Court Rejects ‘Me Too’ Evidence in Discrimination Case
Employees often attempt to prove discrimination by offering evidence that other, similar employees were subject to the same treatment, often referred to as “me too” evidence. The California Court of Appeal rejected an employee’s attempt to use “me too” evidence when the employee sought to introduce evidence showing how employees outside his protected class were