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 12

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 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

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

Supreme Court endorses "cat's paw" theory of employer liability for discriminatory employment actions

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 4 2011

On March 1, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a near-unanimous decision in the closely watched employment case, Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 90-400

California Court of Appeal decision awards civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 for violation of wage order

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 26 2011

In Bright v. 99 Only Stores (case no. B220016), the California Court of Appeal held that a cashier could recover civil penalties when her employer failed to provide her suitable seating as required by Wage Order No.7-2001, subdivision 14 (requiring that employers provide employees with seating where the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats

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

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

Supreme court extends Fair Labor Standards Act anti-retaliation protection to employees who make oral complaints

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") protects employees who make oral complaints about a violation of the FLSA

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

U.S. Supreme Court narrows public-sector unions' ability to collect special assessments or extra union dues and raises doubts about "fair share fees"

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court held Thursday, June 21, that the Service Employees International Union violated the First Amendment rights of California state employees when it imposed a special political assessment without first issuing a notice explaining the additional fees and giving nonunion members a chance to object