Close

Bay Area Employment Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Welcome to California: If you Work in California You are Entitled to the Protection of California’s Right to Overtime and other Wage Laws Regardless of Where you Reside

I’m not so sure why so much attention has been paid to Sullivan v. Oracle, other than the case has been up and down and all around the court system. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Oracle, 51 Cal.4th 1191 (2011); Sullivan v. Oracle, 662 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2011). The recent…

Updated:

The NLRB Strikes a Blow in Support of Class Actions

On January 3, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruled that an employer cannot prohibit its employees from vindicating their rights through a class action. D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012). Employer D.R. Horton required that its employees enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.…

Updated:

Language of Arbitration Agreement Permits Court, not Arbitrator, to determine Whether Arbitration Agreement is Enforceable on Facts of this Case, and Court determines that Multiple Unconscionable Provisions Invalidate this Agreement

CantorCO2e’s mandatory employment agreement was riddled with unconscionable provisions, errors, and bias. No wonder the California Court of Appeals decided that the court should determine the validity of the agreement and then determined that the agreement was not valid. Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, LLP, ___Cal.App.4th ___ (Feb. 16, 2012). As part…

Updated:

Another Arbitration Agreement Bites the Dust due to a Combination of Unconscionable Provisions

I know I’ve said this before, but if employers so relish their precious right to force employees to arbitrate all their claims, why can’t they get it right and draft a simple arbitration agreement so that it is enforceable? Mayers v. Volt Management Corp.,__ C.A.4th___ (Feb. 2, 2012) is another…

Updated:

California Court of Appeals Reverses Retaliation Verdict using a Tortuous Analysis of What a Plaintiff Needs to Prove in a Retaliatory Termination Case

The California Court of Appeal overturned a $2 million dollar award to a Los Angeles police officer who it was admitted was fired solely because he complained of sexual harassment. Sounds like a good case? Too good for this court panel, which turned logic on its head in finding that…

Updated:

Employee’s Family Leave Claim Fails Where Employee Is on Leave Longer than Twelve Weeks, and Presented Insufficient Evidence

Ms. Rogers was a long term employee of Los Angeles County, serving as a personnel officer in the Executive Office, when she took a nineteen week medical leave of absence. When she returned to work, Los Angeles County notified her that she had been transferred to another position in a…

Updated:

Court Rejects Employer’s Attempt to Reverse Finding of Sexual Harassment Based upon Allegation That Employee’s Testimony Was Inherently Improbable

Autozone did not accept responsibility for the fact that its managers, and thus Autozone itself, were found guilty of sexual harassment, leading it to appeal the jury’s verdict and claim that the plaintiff’s testimony was somehow “inherently improbable.” The California Court of Appeal was able to accurately discern that the…

Updated:

Court Imposes Unnecessarily High Hurdle for Female Employee to Prove Sexual Harassment Claim in Brennan v. Townsend & O’Leary

In the arena of sexual harassment, we’ve come a long way, baby. In general, the public is more aware of what conduct is forbidden in the workplace, and many employers train managers and employees alike to prevent such conduct. As a society, we are much more likely to have work…

Updated:

Right to Administrative (Berman) Hearing before the Labor Commissioner under Attack in Light of Concepcion: Employee’s Right to Jury Trial in the Cross Hairs of the US Supreme Court

The conservative US Supreme Court’s activist agenda is in full throttle in the mandatory arbitration arena. In the AT&T v. Concepcion case (see prior blog of July 6, 2011), the US Supreme Court planted its thumb squarely on the employer’s side of the scales of justice by overturning past law…

Updated:

Nielsen’s Summary Judgment Reversed in Age Discrimination Case where Younger Employees – even if over the age of 40 themselves – Treated More Leniently for Committing Similar, but not Identical, Violations and Nielsen Failed to Follow its own Procedures

Nielsen Media Research convinced the district court to grant summary judgment in this age discrimination case, and the district court held that plaintiff, Ms. Earl, failed to prove that Nielsen’s actions were a pretext for discrimination. Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2011 WL 4436250 (9th Cir.…

Contact Us