California Fair Employment and Housing Act

News & Analysis as of

Employment Law - Oct 2014 #3

DOL Grants Could Signal More Misclassification Actions - Why it matters: Employers have faced a tidal wave of litigation over the alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors, with workers ranging...more

California Employers Must Now Include Training against "Abusive Conduct" in AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Training for Supervisors

Last week, Governor Brown signed legislation that adds a new component to the required AB 1825 sexual harassment training for supervisors. Starting January 1, 2015, AB 1825 anti-harassment training must also include training...more

Franchisor Not Liable for Sexual Harassment of Franchisee's Employee under FEHA

In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court took on the issue of whether a franchisor is an "employer" of its franchisee's employees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") and therefore...more

Did You Know…California Supreme Court Rules – No Franchisor Vicarious Liability

The California Supreme Court recently held in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

California Supreme Court Clarifies When a Franchisee's Employees Can Bring Employment Claims Against the Franchisor in Taylor...

In Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court restricted the ability of a franchisee’s employees to sue the franchisor based on theories of vicarious liability and the theory that the franchisor was...more

California Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions

Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not...more

IRCA Does Not Preempt FEHA, But Limits Available Remedies

In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) preempts the application of the antidiscrimination provisions of...more

Employment Law - July 2014 #2

High Court’s Fall Docket Includes Major Employment Issues - Why it matters: While the 2013-2014 U.S. Supreme Court term may be over, the justices have granted certiorari in two major employment cases slated for the...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - July 2014

California Employees Can Waive Class Claims In An Arbitration Agreement, But Not PAGA Claims - Resolving an issue that has created uncertainty for California employers, the California Supreme Court recently held in...more

Undocumented Workers May Pursue Claims Under California’s FEHA, So Says The California Supreme Court

On June 26, 2014, in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Supreme Court held that undocumented immigrants who fraudulently obtained employment still may pursue retaliation and discrimination claims under the...more

Unauthorized Work Status Does Not Bar Discrimination Claims

In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Supreme Court held that an undocumented worker who was wrongfully terminated in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) may be awarded lost pay...more

California Supreme Court: Undocumented Worker May Recover Lost Wages for Period Up to Employer’s Discovery of Immigration Status

Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., S196568 (June 26, 2014): On June 26, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that federal immigration law does not preempt a California law that extends state law protections to...more

Don’t Wait Until Trial Is Over to Raise Objection As to Court’s Jurisdiction, Says California Court

Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, No. G048443 (June 12, 2014): In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that an employer that waited until a trial ended to raise an objection about exhausting administrative...more

Ninth Circuit Revives Police Officers’ Age Bias Class Action Over Scrapped Exam

Stockwell v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 12-15070 (April 24, 2014): In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals diluted the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,...more

Ninth Circuit Holds On 23(f) Appeal That District Court Abused Its Discretion By Weighing The Merits In Denying Certification

After granting the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) petition, the Ninth Circuit reversed a denial of class certification, finding that the district court had improperly weighed the merits of the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(a)(2) commonality...more

Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial Of Class Certification In Disparate Impact Case

On April 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of class certification in a disparate impact age discrimination case, holding that the court erred in considering merits issues...more

Contract That Shortens Time For Bringing Employment Claims Rejected By California Court

Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates, No. A136028 (March 20, 2014): A California Court of Appeal recently held that an employer cannot contractually shorten the amount of time that an employee has to bring an action under the...more

FEHA Limitations Period Cannot be Shortened by Agreement

In Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates, a California Court of Appeal held that an employer’s attempt to shorten the one year statute of limitations to file a harassment claim under FEHA was against public policy and...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - April 2014

Supreme Court Confirms FICA Taxes Must be Withheld from Severance Payments - Finding severance payments to be a form of “remuneration for employment,” the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Quality Stores,...more

Employment Law

PAGA Suit Belongs in State, Not Federal, Court Says Ninth Circuit - Why it matters: A wage and hour suit brought under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) belongs in state , not federal , court, the Ninth...more

Same Sex Harassment Is Actionable, California Court of Appeal Affirms

In Lewis v. City of Benicia, the First Appellate District affirmed once again that in California, same-sex harassment is actionable. Brian Lewis, a volunteer and later paid intern at the City of Benecia’s water...more

Former University Employee Ordered To Pay $100,000 In Attorneys’ Fees For Bringing Frivolous FEHA Action

Robert v. Stanford University, H037514 (February 25, 2014): The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed an award of $100,000 in attorneys’ fees to a prevailing employer in a case where a former employee brought a...more

Litigating Age Claims in California: Not Every Settlement Agreement Requires OWBPA Consideration and Revocation Periods

The Facts - I represent a national company with operations in California. A former employee recently filed a lawsuit against them in a California state court. After negotiating with opposing counsel, the parties...more

Weekly Law Resume - February 2014: Employment Law – Wrongful Termination – Retaliation – Jury Instruction

Romeo Mendoza v. Western Medical Center Santa Ana - Court Of Appeal, Fourth District (January 14, 2014) - In the Harris decision, the California Supreme Court held that CACI No. 2500 (the Federal Employment and...more

13 Changes To California Law In 2014: What Employers Need To Know

Every new year brings employment law changes for California’s employers and, while the Affordable Care Act has taken the spotlight for 2014, a vast array of employment laws deserve special attention from California employers...more

130 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6