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

By: Alden J. Parker

Whether you needed a new hiring manager or not, you just got one. On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by supermarket owners in Los Angeles. While the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule, the effect of their rejection of the appeal is to let stand the California Supreme Court’s earlier ruling, permitting local governments to pass ordinances that require the hiring or retention of employees when a business’s ownership changes hands.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Scott M. Plamondon

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) thinks so. The EEOC recently posted a letter to its website stating that it may be unlawful for employers to require a job applicant to have obtained a high school diploma if the applicant suffers from a learning disability and has been unable to obtain one. The EEOC’s position represents a significant departure from traditional interpretation by the courts with regard to matters of unintentional discrimination resulting in a disparate impact on certain groups.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

The employment lawyers at Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin (WGCT&T) want to remind all employers that their OSHA 300a Annual Summary Report must be posted in the workplace by February 1, 2012 and remain posted until April 30, 2012. Pursuant to OSHA's recordkeeping requirements, the 300a Annual Summary Report must contain the appropriate information from the employer’s OSHA 300 Logs for workplace injuries and illnesses during 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:  Alden J. Parker

If you thought all the news from the NLRB these days had to do with Posters and Recess appointments, think again. On January 6, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board emphatically rejected an arbitration agreement that required employees to waive their class action rights. This opinion squarely rejected the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, wherein SCOTUS approved of class action waivers in compulsory arbitration agreements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Alden J. Parker

The California Supreme Court recently addressed whether insurance claims adjusters qualify for the administrative exemption under California law. (Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.).) The Court's decision in late December 2011, focused on the issue of the "administrative/production worker dichotomy." Here the Court was looking at whether employees who fall on the "production" side can ever qualify for the administrative exemption. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:     Chelcey E. Lieber

Including arbitration provisions in employment agreements or employee handbooks is not a guaranteed way to avoid the courtroom. On January 3, 2012, the California Court of Appeal upheld a decision from the Sacramento County Superior Court holding that an arbitration provision contained in a pre-employment agreement was unconscionable, and, therefore, unenforceable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By:       Lizbeth (“Beth”) West, Esq. 

As I wrote in my November 16, 2011 post entitled “Non-Union Employers Beware: You Are Likely Required to Post the NLRB’s New “Employee Rights” Poster,” 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 (“Beth”) V. West, Esq.

In October 2011, Governor Brown signed AB 469 - the “California Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011” (the “Act”). The Act created Labor Code section 2810.5(a) which, as of January 1, 2012, requires employers to provide some new employees at the time of hire with a written notice that details their rate of pay, employer name and address, workers’ compensation carrier, and other information specified in the Act. The Act also instructed the DLSE to create a model notice that employers can use.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks