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 31

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

2010 new law: workers' compensation update

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

A new bill has amended California Labor Code 3600 to make it illegal for employers to deny claims of an employee's injury or death occurring during the course of the employee's work when the perpetrator's motives are based on the employee's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation

Bond requirement for wage claim appeals

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

Effective January 2011, under the new amendment to California Labor Code Section 98.2, employers, before filing an appeal of a wage claim administrative decision, will be required to post a bond or pay a cash deposit to the court in the amount of the judgment received in the administrative hearing

2010 new laws on safety for healthcare facilities and educational institutions

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

Assembly Bill 1083 is an added requirement to the California Health and Safety Code that requires all licensed hospitals to conduct an annual security and safety assessment

New EEOC regulations implement the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 3 2011

On January 10, 2011, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations implementing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) took effect, interpreting and clarifying the Act's employment provisions

Revised heat regulations include new shade provisions and training requirements

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

Under recent revisions, employers are required to provide shade when temperatures reach 85 degrees Fahrenheit and to institute "high-heat" procedures (such as observing employees for signs of illness and reminding employees to drink water) at 95 degrees

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