(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
Another New Year means another flurry of new laws for California employers. Indeed, Governor Newsom had another busy October, signing over a dozen employee-friendly bills touching everything from cannabis use to workplace...more
Employers should have a comprehensive plan regarding sexual harassment prevention in the workplace, which includes training for all employees. Under current California law, employers with five or more employees are required...more
Partner Joseph Ortiz Discusses Changes in the Southern California Newspaper Group - For California employers, 2020 brings sweeping changes to equalize the workplace. This playbook of new employment laws — aimed at...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Under California law, obesity can qualify as a disability if it has a physiological cause and limits a major life activity. Proving such a claim has been difficult. The First District Court of Appeal’s...more
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in this political climate, it seems as though more people are comfortable voicing those opinions, even if they may offend someone. Although free speech is a primary pillar of...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Rest Periods - Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 7407328 (Cal. S. Ct. 2016) - Jennifer Augustus filed this...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: An employee who expresses opposition to an employer’s policies and practices that affect members of the general public is not engaging in an activity that FEHA protects, because the activity is not opposing...more
It turns out that “protected activity” sufficient to make out a retaliation claim in California is not as broad as it may sometimes seem. On November 9, 2016, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the employer in...more
From the California Legislature: New Employment Laws, Bills Set for Signature: Why it matters - The California Legislature has been busy with employment-related bills, passing measures to provide additional...more
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
California’s 2012-2013 Legislative Session concluded with the enactment of a variety of new laws that will affect California employers. In light of these developments, summarized below, California employers should review...more
Despite $27,000 Jury Award, 9th Circuit Approves Almost $700,000 in Attorney’s Fees - Why it matters: Affirming the broad discretion of federal district court judges to award attorney’s fees, the Ninth U.S. Circuit...more
The California Legislature was unusually active this year. Significantly, California increased the state minimum wage, created new “unfair immigration-related practices,” and expanded protections for whistleblowers. All laws...more
The California Legislature passed and Governor Brown approved the following new statutes impacting California employment law that shortly take effect in 2014....more
In Cho v. Chang, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an employee’s statements to coworkers about alleged discrimination were not protected activities triggering special protection under...more
Employer strictly liable for supervisor’s harassment of employee only if supervisor has hire and fire authority over subordinates - In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State...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
In Lawler v. Montblac North American LLC, the plaintiff, Cynthia Lawler, a store manager at a boutique retail store, was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Lawler initiated the action after Defendant employer terminated her...more