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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 16

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 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


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


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


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


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


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