California Employment News: Considerations for Employment Termination (Podcast)
California Employment News: Considerations for Employment Termination
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 9: Best Practices for Employers with John Saxon, Plaintiff’s Labor & Employment Attorney
#WorkforceWednesday: Termination Meetings on the Record - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Professional Breakup Advice: Convey Your Reason for Separation (or Termination)
Patient Steering and Charting
Employers: Benefits Considerations Post-Pandemic [More with McGlinchey Ep. 3]
I-21 – Sexual Harassment (Still), Political Tweeting, and Intersectional Discrimination
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
I-17 – Engaging Your Employees in Today’s Workplace, Featuring Rick Turner at Whirlpool Corporation
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
Day 22 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-10 Questions to Better Operationalize Compliance
Day 15 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-Employment Separation Issues
Episode 11: Legal and Business Issues Stemming From Employees' Out-of-Work Conduct
Warning Signs that Signal You Might be Terminated from Your Job
Friedman: Abramson Dismissal a 'Teachable Moment' for Companies
What is Wrongful Termination in Arizona?
Protecting Trade Secrets When Employees Depart
Governor Newsom signed AB 2188, which amends the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to prohibit discrimination based on off-the-job cannabis use. AB 2188 prohibits most employers from discriminating against a...more
California has enacted legislation broadly protecting employees from discrimination for the use of marijuana, which has been legal in the state since 2016. Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1288 into law. It generally...more
In Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District, No. G053411, published June 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee was barred from bringing an Intentional Infliction of Emotional...more
DOL Reissues Opinion Letters, Adopts ‘Primary Beneficiary’ FLSA Test - Why it matters - Reinforcing a shift in policy, the Department of Labor (DOL) reissued 17 opinion letters on a variety of topics under the Fair...more
In William Bustos v. Global P.E.T, Inc., et al. (Cal Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2017, No. E065869), William Bustos brought a disability discrimination action against his former employers, Global P.E.T., Inc. and Global Plastics, Inc....more
In Charles T. Merrick v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., et. al. (No. 14-56853, filed 8/16/17), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied a nuanced analysis within the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting...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
Employer Is Entitled To Recover $4 Million In Attorney's Fees From EEOC - CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1642 (2016) - The EEOC filed suit against CRST (a trucking company) alleging...more
Manner v. Intevac, Inc., No. H038979 (January 2, 2015): The California Court of Appeal recently upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment of a former employee’s claims of retaliation in violation of the Fair...more
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
Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc., No. B242003 (October 16, 2013): Recently, a California Court of Appeal held that a fired employee could proceed with a lawsuit in which he claimed that his employer discriminated...more
An employee (Prock) becomes temporarily but totally disabled by an anxiety disorder, goes out on a disability leave and receives disability benefits. The disability leave is extended by the employee’s doctor several times....more
Recent case law confirms the need for employers to be cautious about mechanically applying pregnancy disability leave laws without considering the implications of the Fair Employment and Housing Act....more
John McGrory alleged his employment was terminated because he is male and because he participated in his employer’s internal investigation. He also alleged defamation associated with a statement the vice president of human...more
In this Issue: - California Supreme Court Revises Jury Instructions And Trial Procedures In Discrimination Cases, Harris v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013) - Employee Who Exhausted Four Months Of...more
In This Issue: - Feature Articles: - California Court Of Appeal Significantly Expands Pregnancy Leave Rights - New York Employer's Flex-time Policy Precluded Holding Employee Accountable For Tardiness ...more
Consider this scenario: An employee goes out on a leave of absence for anxiety. His doctor says he’s temporarily totally disabled. Then the leave gets extended because the employee is having problems adjusting to the...more
Prock v. Tamura Corp. of America, No. E054185 (January 25, 2013): In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal recently overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit where the employee was fired while on a leave of absence...more
McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech. Inc., No. H036597 (January 24, 2013): A California Court of Appeal recently upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit where the employee refused to cooperate with a company investigation and claimed...more
On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. The California high court upheld the “mixed-motive” defense in cases brought under California’s Fair Employment...more
In Wynona Harris v. City of Santa Monica, decided on February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court addressed the following question...more
On February 7, 2013 the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed that backpay and reinstatement are not available remedies for a plaintiff under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) when an employer...more
Last month, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will clarify the standard of proof required for “mixed-motive” discrimination claims under the California Fair Housing and Discrimination Act...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
In This Issue: - $1.347 Million Award To Former General Counsel For Breach Of Implied Contract Is Upheld - Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc., 211 Cal. App. 4th 726 (2012) - $114,000 Pregnancy...more