What if I told you that the California Supreme Court has ruled that under certain circumstances, an employee being exposed to lewd conduct in the workplace – including sexual discussions, sexually explicit pictures, and colleagues pantomiming masturbation – is not enough to sustain an actionable sexual harassment claim? In light of the recent spate of […]
Tag: California Supreme Court
With lawsuits against ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft in the news, the issue of whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee has been getting quite a bit of attention recently. The following case involved an employee performing what now seems like an almost old-fashioned occupation: taxicab driver.
Thanks to the California Legislature’s largesse toward public-sector labor unions, California public employers must now allow unions access to new employee orientations and must give unions contact information regarding new employees.
By Jeff Sloan and Susan Yoon, Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP In a groundbreaking decision issued in August, the California Court of Appeal shot down a constitutional challenge brought by employees and their unions against the Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association’s (MCERA) action to eliminate certain forms of “spiking” payments from being included in the […]
By Emily A. Mertes and Katharine Essick Since the California Supreme Court’s seminal meal and rest break decision Brinker v. Superior Court in 2012, employers have wrestled with whether, in their particular circumstances, it would be impractical to provide their employees with two separate rest breaks before and after a meal period during an 8-hour […]
By: Beth A. Kahn and Hubert T. Lee Arbitration agreements are popular among California employers, but in many instances the employer has to go to court in order enforce the agreement. Recently, the California Supreme Court upheld an arbitration provision in a sales agreement, even though quite a few of the terms were arguable—but also […]
It is generally in your best interest to capture all absences that are Family and Medical Leave (FMLA)‐related, says consultant Kristi McKinzey, PHR. She offers four common hazards employers face when they don’t track all absences.
In early 2013, the California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an employee in a so-called “mixed-motive” case (when an employer has both unlawful and legitimate reasons for taking an adverse employment action) brought under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Yesterday, we looked at the case of a California employee, Lorena Alamo, who successfully established that her termination was due to improper “mixed motives” (the employer had both unlawful and legitimate reasons for the firing).
“Drug testing of private sector employees and applicants in California implicates the right of privacy set forth in Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution.” Marc Jacuzzi told us in a recent CER webinar. “That is where individual employee rights lie for private employers.” But what about safety concerns? Do they trump privacy concerns?