Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

Drawing the line online: employers’ rights to employees’ social media accounts

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
-
USA
-
October 16 2012

With the unprecedented popularity of social media, employees have increasingly used LinkedIn and other online forums to network for business and social purposes

Settlement of individual claims did not moot class representative’s appeal in class action

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
-
USA
-
February 10 2010

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Narouz v. Charter Communications, LLC, held that a class representative who voluntarily settled his individual claims but retained a “personal stake” in the class representation retained the right to continue in representative capacity and appeal the denial of a motion for class certification

Contractor must report non-obvious hazards even if it did not create them

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
-
USA
-
January 19 2010

California’s First District Court of Appeal in Suarez v. Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc., found that Cal-OSHA provisions, Labor Code 6304.5 and 6400, “impose a duty on each employer, at a multiemployer worksite, to report all non-obvious hazards about which the employer learns because its employees were exposed to them during the course of their work, even if the employer in question did not create the hazard.”

CA Court of Appeal confirms unlicensed subcontractor’s workers may assert wage claims against general contractor

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
-
USA
-
July 9 2009

In Sanders Construction Company, Inc. v. Cerda, 2009 DJDAR 9714, issued June 29, 2009, the Fourth District Appellate Court confirmed that, by operation of Labor Code 2750.5, an unlicensed subcontractor’s workers are statutory employees of the general contractor, which may obligate it to pay their wages

California Supreme Court rules intentional discrimination not required for Unruh Civil Rights Actclaims involving ADA violations

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
-
USA
-
June 22 2009

In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., No. S162818, __ Cal. 4th __ (2009), issued June 11, 2009, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who seeks Civil Code 52 damages for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1999 under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is not required to prove intentional discrimination

Search results

Drawing the line online: employers’ rights to employees’ social media accounts

Settlement of individual claims did not moot class representative’s appeal in class action

Contractor must report non-obvious hazards even if it did not create them

CA Court of Appeal confirms unlicensed subcontractor’s workers may assert wage claims against general contractor

California Supreme Court rules intentional discrimination not required for Unruh Civil Rights Actclaims involving ADA violations

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Workarea