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 14

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


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


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


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 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


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


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


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


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 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