The Labor and Employment Law Blog : Labor & Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin Law Firm : Sacramento California : Labor & Employment Law Blog

By:       Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

On August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) adopted a rule that would require certain employers, including non-union employers to post a notice to employees explaining their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The implementation date was originally set for November 14, 2011. However, due to a number of lawsuits challenging the rule, the implementation date was delayed and the NLRB announced that the rule would not go into effect until January 31, 2012. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

Most employers are aware of the federal law known as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) which is designed to protect those who serve in the armed forces from discrimination and retaliation. However, many California employers are unaware that section 394 of the California Military and Veterans Code also prohibits employers from discriminating against members of the armed forces (“Section 394”). Therefore, an employee who believes he/she has been discriminated against based on his/her military status has the right to pursue a claim under one or both laws.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Chuck Post

Because employers and employees have the right to reach agreement as to the terms, conditions and nature of the work, many employers believe that anything they can get an employee to agree to is legal and permissible. This notion can lead an employer into a violation of law. Some obligations, however, such as the obligation to pay overtime to non-exempt workers, the provision of worker’s compensation, and the obligation to provide a safe work environment (to name just a few) cannot be bargained away. An employee’s agreement to surrender these statutory protections is void, and can also constitute a violation of criminal law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:     Charles L. Post

        Lawyer Answer: It depends.

        Here, that answer is not simply a dodge but is instead a reflection of what can be some complicated legal terrain. The question of advanced training costs arises in a number of situations: (1) where an employer advances costs for training to obtain a license or certification that is required by an ordinance or statute; (2) where such certification or licensure is not required by statute or ordinance but the employer requires it as a condition of employment; and (3) where the training is neither a requirement of statute, ordinance or by the employer, but reimbursement or supplement of such training costs or tuition is provided as a benefit. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Lizbeth (“Beth”) West, Esq.

Governor Brown signed a significant number of bills into law during the 2011/12 legislative term, many of which will have a direct impact on almost every California employer, regardless of size. Many laws impose new obligations on employers and prevent employers from engaging in what they may otherwise thought was previously permissible. Below is a summary of the employment-related legislation that goes into effect on January 1, 2012 (except where noted).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Chelcey E. Lieber

Are you on Facebook? If your answer is no, you are one of the lone survivors who has managed to hold out from joining the social media world we now live in. There is also a good chance that you won’t be able to hold out much longer, as social media is clearly not going anywhere. Social media has managed to work its way into the lives of teenagers, parents, grandparents, and even people’s pets. Yes . . . people create Facebook pages for their pets! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks