By: Sam G. Sherman, Esq.
We previously wrote about an NLRB final rule requiring employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the NLRA. That rule originally required all employers to post the notices by November 14, 2011.
Yesterday the NLRB issued a press release delaying the implementation of the rule until January 31, 2011. The NLRB indicated it was delaying enforcement "to allow for enhanced education and outreach to employers, particularly those who operate small and medium sized…
By: Sam G. Sherman, Esq.
The California Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear oral argument in Brinker v. Superior Court. Oral argument is scheduled for November 8, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco. The Court generally has only 90 days from oral argument to issue its decision.
Brinker has been watched closely by employers (and plaintiff's counsel) across the state. At issue is whether an employer must merely provide its employees with meal…
By: Alexis Gutierrez
In Hofferica v St. Mary Medical Center, a staff nurse sued her hospital employer after she was fired—when she did not return—at the end of her approved FMLA leave. The employee alleged that, during her leave, she would call in to the hospital to provide leave updates -- but the hospital did not return these calls.
The employee accused the hospital of rejecting her request for a brief Leave extension, and ultimately firing her for failing to return…
By: Alexis Gutierrez
The NLRB has issued a Final Rule that requires employers to notify employees of their rights under the NLRA. This regulation is a mandatory posting effective November 14, 2011.
The notice is currently available at here. Employers that choose to download the notice from the NLRB’s website are required to print it on 11x17-inch paper, or on two 8 ½ x11 sheets.
NOTE : The NLRB was recently sued by a manufacturing group, contesting the new posting rule…
By Alexis Gutierrez
Wage/Hour Class Action Decision applying federal procedural law and NV state law.
Take-Away: Defendant employer could not “pick off” representative plaintiff to end class action lawsuit. A defendant may “moot” a class action through an offer of settlement only if he satisfies the demands of the class; an offer to one cannot moot the action because it is not an offer to all.
Summary Of Decision:
In April 2009, Gareth Pitts filed a class action complaint in…
By Sam G. Sherman
The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied class certification in a suit brought by a class of roughly 1.5 million female current and former Wal-Mart employees in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The female employees alleged that Wal-Mart’s policy of providing local managers with discretion over employment decisions has a disproportionate impact against female employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court after the trial court…
By: Jason C. Ross, HFM Labor & Employment Associate
California and Federal anti-discrimination laws generally preclude qualified employers from discriminating against employees “because of” protected attributes and classes, including certain disabilities. One protected disability under both California and Federal employment law is rehabilitated drug addicts.
In a recent California case, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the legality of an employer policy forever disqualifying job applicants from employment if they ever failed the employer’s pre-employment drug screen. (Lopez v. Pacific…
The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied class certification in a suit brought by a class of roughly 1.5 million female current and former Wal-Mart employees in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The female employees alleged that Wal-Mart’s policy of providing local managers with discretion over employment decisions has a disproportionate impact against female employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court after the trial court and the Ninth Circuit…
By: Alexis Gutierrez
This week, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed Assembly Bill 559, legislation offered in response to Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, the 2010 California Supreme Court decision that upheld trial judges discretion to deny costs to plaintiffs whose small-scale damages in FEHA lawsuits could have been recovered in a limited jurisdiction civil case.
In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, a unanimous high court held that trial judges should have the discretion to deny costs to plaintiffs whose small-scale damages…
A federal appeals court has decided that a real estate lawsuit filed by homeowners against builders, accusing them of marketing other homes in the neighborhood in a reckless manner, inflating demand and deflating prices, can proceed. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that a federal district judge in Riverside, California, who dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, erred in his judgment.
The lawsuit names major homebuilders including MDC Holdings Inc., Beazer Homes USA Inc., Lennar Corp., Ryland…