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 33

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


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


Increased penalties for employers who fail to obtain workers' compensation
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2009

Senate Bill 313 increases penalties against employers who fail to secure workers' compensation for their employees


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


Congress considers mandating paid leave for employees
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2009

In yet another example of how the legislative landscape has changed for employers since the 2008 election, two pieces of legislation recently introduced in Congress would require employers to provide paid leave for their employees


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: Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") amendments
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2009

The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA") expanded coverage for military exigency leave and military caregiver leave under the FMLA


Implications of California's new e-discovery laws on employers
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2009

Last summer, California enacted the Electronic Discovery Act, which amended the Civil Discovery Act to include electronically-stored information ("ESI"


California Supreme Court to decide whether daily overtime pay is due to nonresidents for work performed for California company
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation, 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008) applied California's labor code to out-of-state employees working temporarily in California for employers based in the state


Recent amendment: alternative workweek schedules
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2009

New California legislation allows non-exempt employees subject to a properly implemented alternative workweek schedule to work more than eight hours per day without incurring daily overtime