Showing 121 posts in California.

California Supreme Court: Continuous Accrual Principles Apply to 17200 Claims

January 24, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Today the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in the Aryeh case regarding the application of the common law theory of continuous accrual to actions under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.) Though the case does not expressly address labor or employment issues, the case is nevertheless important for California employers, as the majority of employment litigation claims made are coupled with a 17200 claim.  More ›

Employee’s Spouse’s loss of Consortium Claim Barred by Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Rule

August 30, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The California Supreme Court recently found that an employee's spouse could not recover for loss of consortium in his civil employment action, even considering the "power press" exception to the Labor Code.  More ›

NFL Player Denied Right to Workers’ Compensation Benefits in California

August 7, 2012 by Mellissa A. Schafer

Former professional football player Bruce Matthews was a 19 year veteran of the NFL who retired in 2002 when he was with the Tennessee Titans. In 2008, he filed a claim in California claiming a right to workers' compensation benefits, even though there was no specific injury in California. After the claim was filed, the Titans filed a grievance against Matthews arguing that the suit violated his employment contract which specifically provided that any workers' compensation claim would be governed by Tennessee law. Due to a binding arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement, the parties ultimately arbitrated the dispute. The arbitrator found the choice of law provision to be valid and controlling, and ordered Matthews to "cease and desist" with the filing in California. Subsequently, Matthews filed suit in federal court to vacate the arbitration award. The District Court denied his request and confirmed the Arbitrator's Award. More ›

California Court Compels Arbitration and Dismissal of Class Claims, Invalidating Gentry Based on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

June 4, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

For many years, pursuant to Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, California courts have held that class waiver provisions in arbitration agreements should not be enforced if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of redressing the rights of affected employees. But that was before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its April 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, holding that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced pursuant to their terms. Further, the Supreme Court held that “requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme consistent with the FAA.” More ›

CA Court Finds Arbitration Agreement with Modification Provisions to be Illusory

April 23, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The California Court of Appeals recently found an employer's arbitration agreement to be "illusory" because it contained a modification provision which stated that the employer had the right to amend, modify, or revoke the arbitration contract on 30 days' written notice, and at the end of the 30-day period, a contract change applies to any claim that has not been filed with the American Arbitration Association. More ›

California Court Finds Employment Arbitration Provision Unconscionable

March 5, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Employment arbitration agreements are generally enforceable in California. However, great care is required in both the drafting and the implementation. For example, California's First District Court of Appeal (San Francisco) recently underscored this through the unconscionablity doctrine in Ajamian v. Cantor CO2e, No. A13125 (Cal.Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012). The Court affirmed denial of an employer's petition to compel arbitration under a provision in an employment contract. More ›

Significant Public Interest in Investigation, Discipline of School Teacher Outweighs His Right to Privacy

January 27, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Though personnel files are typically afforded protection from inquiring minds, the rules are a little bit different when there’s a significant public interest at issue. That was precisely the case in this recent decision by the California Court of Appeals. More ›

New Workplace laws for California Employers

January 3, 2012 by David Ian Dalby

If you have employees in California, you may wish to scroll through this list of legislation passed in 2011, all of which became effective January 1, 2012. The legislation includes new rules about using consumer credit reports as a part of background checks, E-verify, leaves of absence for organ donors, and various other employment and wage and hour provisions.   

CA Supreme Court Issues Insightful Ruling on Application of Administrative Exemption

December 29, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Today the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Harris v. Superior Court. This case dealt with whether or not insurance adjusters were properly classified as exempt employees, or whether they should have been entitled to overtime compensation under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders and the California Labor Code. More ›

Another California Court Holds Employers must "Make Available," not "Ensure" meal Breaks

September 14, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

For the past few years, California courts have been inundated with lawsuits filed by employees claiming that they did not receive their thirty-minute uninterrupted meal breaks per Labor Code section 512, which provides that:   More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives