In Barrett Business Services, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and Rafael Rivas, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the WCAB’s denial of reconsideration of its determination of which party should bear the loss when a stolen check, with a forged indorsement, is cashed and the payee never receives the check. The appellate court held that …
A big decision just hit the airwaves in the employment law world. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently announced its decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. In the case the NLRB considered whether an employer violates the NLRA when it requires employees to sign an agreement that precludes them from filing a class action addressing their wages, hours, or other working conditions against the employer. The Board found that such an agreement violates section 7 of the NLRA, which gives employees the right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.
Attorney general, Kamala Harris, has issued Opinion AG 07-804, (found at 87 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 114) which states a private parking lot owner cannot issue a ticket with a monetary fine. Even if the private parking lot owner towed your car (something they are allowed to do if the appropriate signs are posted), that owner cannot require you to …
The California Legislature employment laws that go into effect on January 1, 2012, as failure to implement policies and procedures for complying with these statues could lead to hefty penalties.
Brinker Set to Be Broacast via Webcast Tomorrow 11.08.11 on www.calchannel.com
In Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, the USDC Central Court (Judge Carney) Finds Class Action PAGA Waiver Unconscionable and joins a growing list of opinions finding AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) inapplicable in the California wage and hour class action contex.
The Court held that Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employee for attorney fees incurred in the employee’s successful defense of the employer’s action against the employee. The Court also concluded that Corporations Code section 317 has no application to limited liability companies.
The California Supreme Court recenlt announced that BRINKER RESTAURANT v. S.C. (HOHNBAUM) Case: S166350, involving meal periods in California, is set for oral argument on Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco For more information on this case, go to: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1898028
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, abrogating California decisional law invalidating class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements to which the FAA applies, does not apply to representative actions under the PAGA. The CA Second Apellate Dist, Div 5 (Los Angeles) held the Trial court erred in invalidating class action waiver in plaintiff’s employment agreement absent the showing of any basis not to enforce this provision and remand the case for the trial court to determine whether to sever the unenforceable provision in the arbitration agreement waiving plaintiff’s right to pursue a PAGA representative action or whether to refuse to enforce the entire arbitration agreement or parts of it.
Attorney-client privilege does not protect employee emails sent to attorney from the Company’s computer where company had email inspection policy