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 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


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 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


New EEOC regulations implement the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • February 3 2011

On January 10, 2011, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations implementing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) took effect, interpreting and clarifying the Act's employment provisions


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


The EEOC final regulations under the ADAAA
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2011

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law


Bond requirement for wage claim appeals
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

Effective January 2011, under the new amendment to California Labor Code Section 98.2, employers, before filing an appeal of a wage claim administrative decision, will be required to post a bond or pay a cash deposit to the court in the amount of the judgment received in the administrative hearing


Revised heat regulations include new shade provisions and training requirements
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

Under recent revisions, employers are required to provide shade when temperatures reach 85 degrees Fahrenheit and to institute "high-heat" procedures (such as observing employees for signs of illness and reminding employees to drink water) at 95 degrees


Paid leave for organ and bone marrow donors
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

Effective January 2011, California employers with 15 or more employees must provide paid leave to organ and bone marrow donors


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