(Podcast) California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
On-Demand Webinar | Navigating Leave and Disability Protection Laws During COVID-19: A Practical Guide for California Employers
Employment Law This Week®: FAA Arguably Preempts California Law, New CA Employment Laws for 2020, CA Consumer Privacy Act Amended
Employment Law This Week: FEHA Expansion, Class Waiver, Employer Conduct Rules, CA’s Paid Family Leave Law
Jobseeker Website May Be Compelled To Disclose Identity Of Anonymous Posters Who Criticized Employer - ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 13 Cal. App. 5th 603 (2017) - ZL Technologies brought suit, alleging libel per se and...more
Victoria Zetwick, a county correctional officer, alleged that the county sheriff created a sexually hostile environment in violation of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by, among other things,...more
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
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
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
In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University ruled that employers are strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor where the supervisor is empowered to take tangible...more
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action....more