We have already discussed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. Earlier this week a Superior Court Judge applied the case and dismissed a pending class
Continue Reading AT&T Begins To Change the Class Action Landscape
In November of 2009 we wrote about Campbell v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2009), which held that, as a matter of law, a
Continue Reading A Big Win for the “Big Four”
This presentation was prepared by my colleagues David Faustman and Cristina K. Armstrong:
1. Do we need to provide seats for our employees?
Yes. Section 14 of almost all
You may have recently read of certain criminal prosecutions arising out of workplace deaths, which are becoming more frequent in California. Section 6425 of the California Labor Code authorizes penalties for
On May 26, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held that individual states may require the use of E-Verify by employers as a prerequisite to doing business. Specifically, in Chamber of Commerce
Continue Reading Supreme Court Endorses Mandatory E-Verify Use
Get a load of this:
The U.S. Department of Labor announced the launch of its first application for smartphones, a timesheet to help employees independently track the hours they
The holding of this case is as follows: “we conclude section 2699, subdivision (f)’s civil penalties are available for a violation of section 1198, based on failure to comply with
Continue Reading Better Sit Down For This One: Bright v 99¢ Only Stores
Summary judgment is difficult to win. We think it’s harder in California state court, which is why we typically try to remove cases to federal court. And it keeps getting
Employers must provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees. That’s the law. And the law is neither convenient nor efficient. But employers do not need to provide any requested reasonable accommodation. As a general matter,
Continue Reading Milan v. City of Holtville: The Mandatory Interactive Process is Exactly That.
“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs." United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991).Continue Reading Judicial One-Liners: