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 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 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 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


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 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


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


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