Close

Bay Area Employment Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Tough Love for Applicant with History of Drug Addiction: Ninth Circuit Approves One Strike Rule for Drug Testing

In a somewhat tortured opinion, the Ninth Circuit approved a one strike rule for drug testing of applicants to become longshore workers. In Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2011) 636 F.3d 1197, Mr. Lopez applied to be a longshoreman in 1997, but was rejected because he…

Updated:

US Supreme Court Declares that Discriminatory Bias of Non-Decision Maker/Supervisor Taints Decision to Fire Employee under Cat’s Paw Theory

Plaintiff’s employment lawyers have long been urging the courts to follow an important reality in employment decisions: discriminating individuals can taint an employment decision made by someone else, and the fact that the final decision maker doesn’t harbour a discriminatory motive himself/herself, should not protect the employer. Some courts have…

Updated:

Associational Retaliation Broadened by US Supreme Court’s Holding that Firing Fiancé of Employee who Filed Charge of Discrimination is Illegal

In an important case, Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S.Ct. 863 (January 24, 2011), the US Supreme Court put an end to retaliation against an employee who takes protected activity by retaliating against someone “closely” associated with her. It did so in order to protect the spirit of…

Updated:

Court Warns that Use of Employer’s Computer & Email Account to Confidentially Communicate with Lawyer is Not Confidential

Communications with employment attorneys are generally confidential. Emails communications are generally confidential. However, beware of these overgeneralizations! If you are an employee with concerns about your employer, and are using your work email on your employer’s computer to consult a lawyer, that may NOT be confidential! In this case, Holmes…

Updated:

Let Me Count the Ways Non-Compete Clauses are Illegal: Court of Appeals Holds that Firing an Employee because of a Prior Illegal Non-Compete Clause is itself Illegal & in Violation of Public Policy

By now this ought to be the accepted and undisputed black letter law: in the State of California, nothing good can come of a non-compete clause. A non-compete clause is generally illegal and in violation of the public policy set forth in California Government Code Section 16600. The reasoning is…

Updated:

US Supreme Court Permits Arbitrators Rather Than Court to Rule on Whether an Arbitration Agreement is Enforceable Creating an Inherent and Untenable Conflict of Interest

Despite the prevalence and overreaching of arbitration agreements in employment cases, traditionally in state and federal court, interpreting both the Federal and California Arbitration Acts (FAA and CAA, respectively), employees have at least been permitted to seek a Court’s determination about whether or not the arbitration agreement the employee signed…

Updated:

Is a Holding Company, or a Parent Corporation, a Proper Defendant in an Employment Action?

In every employment case it is important to name as a defendant the proper employer or employers. Of course, prior to discovery, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain which, out of a myriad of interwoven entities, are the proper defendants. In the recent case of BBA Aviation v Superior Court…

Updated:

Employment Arbitration Agreement Struck Down as Procedurally & Substantively Unconscionable Where Employee not Provided with Arbitration Rules and Other Provisions Favored the Employer

It is another win for the employee in the ongoing battle to make mandatory employment arbitrations more equitable to the employee. Since the concept of mandatory arbitration agreements has been so overwhelmingly endorsed by the courts, some courts have still felt compelled to keep striking down a host of scurrilous…

Updated:

Court Speaks with More than One Tongue on the Disclosure of Arbitrator’s Bias

On August 2, 2010 the California Supreme Court saw no problem with the fact that a disgraced and discredited retired judge – who was publicly censured for creating “an overall courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and racial comments were customary” – served as an arbitrator in…

Updated:

Sandell v Taylor-Listug Once Again Establishes that if it Smells like Disability or Age Discrimination, the Case should go to a Jury

I am not sure why this happens over and over again, but for some reason some trial courts keep believing that if they would vote for the employer if they were sitting as jurors, they should grant summary judgment to the employer and deny the employees their day in court.…

Contact Us