In Davis v. Kiewit Pacific Company, Lisa Davis, a heavy machine operator and one of two female employees at a 100-employee excavation project, prevailed in her claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and...more
In U.S. v. Windsor, the court struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) as unconstitutional. DOMA, for purposes of federal tax and benefits laws, defined marriage as only between “one man and one...more
In American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, a non-employment case, the Supreme Court enforced a class action waiver in an American Express (“AMEX”) arbitration agreement despite a restaurant’s objection that the...more
In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more
7/24/2013
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
But For Causation ,
Discrimination ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
Harassment ,
Retaliation ,
SCOTUS ,
Supervisors ,
Title VII ,
UT Southwestern Medical v Nassar
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
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
7/22/2013
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Affordable Care Act ,
Class Action Arbitration Waivers ,
Delays ,
DOMA ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
FEHA ,
Harassment ,
Proposition 8 ,
Retaliation ,
Same-Sex Marriage ,
SCOTUS ,
Supervisors ,
Title VII ,
US v Windsor ,
Vance v. Ball State University ,
Vicarious Liability
The federal Department of Justice recently filed criminal charges against a 41-year old software programmer and system manager who hacked into his former employer's computer network, causing $90,000 in damage. The complaint...more
In Sanchez v. Aerogroup, the plaintiff alleged that as a condition of her employment she was required to purchase at least eight pairs of shoes from her employer without reimbursement. She asserted violations of both minimum...more
In yet another case addressing the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements in California, a Southern California federal district court in Williams v. Department of Fair Employment and Housing recently held that...more
The NLRB's controversial requirement that employers post notices informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (as reported in our January and May 2012 FEBs) has been held unconstitutional by the...more
The NLRB's controversial requirement that employers post notices informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (as reported in our January and May 2012 FEBs) has been held unconstitutional by the...more
5/15/2013
/ Age Discrimination ,
Criminal Sanctions ,
Discrimination ,
Hackers ,
Jury Awards ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Minimum Wage ,
NLRB ,
Notice Requirements ,
Posting Requirements ,
SCOTUS ,
Social Media ,
Social Media Policy ,
Title VII ,
Unconscionable Contracts
In Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc., the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint, despite offensive comments made by plaintiff's supervisor and coworkers, including a request...more
A California appellate court expanded the basis for a public disclosure of private facts claim in Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc....more
Who owns an employee's social media account when it is used to promote the employer's business? This is a hot-button topic and developing area of employment law, and a Pennsylvania federal court recently shed more light on...more
In Hatai v. Dept. of Transportation, a California court of appeal upheld a trial court's decision to exclude "me too" evidence of discrimination from individuals outside of the plaintiff's protected class, but in doing so...more
In Hatai v. Dept. of Transportation, a California court of appeal upheld a trial court's decision to exclude "me too" evidence of discrimination from individuals outside of the plaintiff's protected class, but in doing so...more
In This Issue:
*FEATURE ARTICLES
- Cal Supreme Court Refuses To Immunize Employers In Mixed-Motive Discrimination Cases, But Significantly Limits Remedies
- Manager's Bias, Public Policy, And Defamation...more
2/21/2013
/ Arbitration Agreements ,
Canning v NLRB ,
Claims Limitations Period ,
Defamation ,
Discrimination ,
Employment Policies ,
Facebook ,
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ,
Fraud Exception ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Kmart ,
Mixed Motive Cases ,
NLRB ,
Parol Evidence ,
Public Policy ,
Recess Appointments ,
Suitable Seats Lawsuits ,
Termination ,
Unconscionable Contracts
In This Issue:
- FEATURE ARTICLES
Supreme Court Emphasizes Supremacy Of Federal Arbitration Act and
Honest Belief Inadequate Defense In CFRA Interference Claim.
- NEWS BITES
Class Action...more
12/19/2012
/ California Family Rights Act (CFRA) ,
Class Action ,
Class Action Arbitration Waivers ,
Discrimination ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Honest Belief Defense ,
NLRB ,
Social Media ,
Social Media Policy ,
Supervisors ,
Title VII