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

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


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


EFCA update: compromise, delay and uncertainty
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • September 23 2009

For the past few months, Senate leadership has been managing expectations on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the bill backed by organized labor designed to make it easier to organize employees and negotiate first-time contracts


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


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


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


EEOC finalizes GINA regulations
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

Effective January 10, 2011, the EEOC's final regulations implementing the employment provisions of Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA") go into effect


New laws in San Francisco: increased minimum wage and new exemption and expenditure rates under the san francisco health care security ordinance
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

Effective January 2011, the minimum wage will increase to $9.92


New meal break exemptions
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2011

Effective January 2011, pursuant to changes to California Labor Code Section 512, construction workers, commercial drivers, certain security officers and employees of electrical corporations, gas corporations, or publicly owned electrical utilities are now exempt from meal break requirements if they are covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement which expressly includes, among other things, provisions for wages, work hours, meal periods and final and binding arbitration of disputes about meal period provisions