We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 14

California appeals court finds viable wrongful termination claim for firing employee based on prior employer's noncompete

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 6 2010

In Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., No. B215179, (decided July 30, 2010), a California Court of Appeals held that a terminated employee had a viable claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy against the employer who terminated him in accordance with a prior employer's noncompete agreement with the employee

Collective-bargaining agreement may require employees to arbitrate age discrimination claims, Supreme Court rules

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 15 2009

On April 1, 2009, in the 5-4 decision 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, the United States Supreme Court held that a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement requiring union members to arbitrate age discrimination claims is enforceable

Supreme Court decision likely to generate increased disparate impact cases

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2010

In a decision sure to generate increased disparate impact litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on May 24, 2010, that a plaintiff alleging disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who does not file a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenging the adoption of an alleged discrimination employment practice, may still assert a disparate impact claim based on a timely charge challenging the employer's later application of that practice

Federal case decides Rehabilitation Act covers contractor discrimination claims

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2009

The Ninth Circuit ruled in Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, 07-16427, that the federal Rehabilitation Act applies to discrimination claims brought by an independent contractor

California Supreme Court decision on stock options allows restricted company stock plan which forfeits restricted shares once employee resigns or is terminated for good cause

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2009

In Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 610 (2009), the California Supreme Court held that a voluntary bonus plan provision that effects a forfeiture if the employee was terminated for cause or voluntarily resigned within two years of purchasing company shares did not equate to an unlawful conversion of wages under California Labor Code 201, 202 and 219

California Supreme Court to decide whether daily overtime pay is due to nonresidents for work performed for California company

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation, 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008) applied California's labor code to out-of-state employees working temporarily in California for employers based in the state

California Supreme Court to decide whether employers must ensure that meal breaks are taken

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2009

Giving clarity to the rules governing meal breaks, the California Court of Appeal, in Brinker v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008), held that while California employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal breaks, they need only provide, not ensure, that such breaks are taken

California federal court rules that corporate defendant may meet CAFA amount-in-controversy threshold by using a reasonable estimate of damages

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2009

On September 21, 2009, Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California struck a blow for common sense in determining CAFA's amount-in-controversy threshold

CAFA removal standards still being defined

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2009

The problems and abuses inherent in class action litigation led Congress to pass the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") in 2005

U.S. Supreme Court approves monitoring of employer-owned electronic equipment

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 23 2010

In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, No. 08-1332, (decided June 17, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the City's search of an employee's text messages sent through and received on a City-issued pager was reasonable, and accordingly, the City did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution