Big news! Weintraub’s L&E Law Blog is one of the nominated candidates for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011.

We need your help! Click here, log onto the Labor and Employment Law Community and then leave a comment at the bottom of the page saying “I vote for The

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in its monumental sex discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of all female employees. The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages. The decision is a victory for many employers snared in the net of class action litigation by employees who are attempting to support their cases by flimsy evidence.Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Where Can You Go To Shop And Find Groceries, Clothes, Electronics, And Supreme Court Class Action Victories That Help Employers Nationwide? Wal-Mart!!!

According to recent media reports, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman released employment records to refute allegations that she knowingly hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny and housekeeper in 2000.  These documents, which The Sacramento Bee posted at http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/Diaz%20Forms.pdf, provide a good illustration as to why California employers should use caution before adopting employment applications, forms, or policies of other employers.  Regardless of their source, using such materials without first consulting a lawyer may lead to problems.
Continue Reading Meg Whitman’s “Nannygate” Records are a Good Reminder that Employers Should Consult Legal Counsel Regarding Employment Applications, Forms, and Policies

I was recently asked something of a “desert island” question. Instead of being asked what 10 records or 10 movies I would take to a desert island, I was asked, “If an employer could only do one thing to reduce its exposure to employment discrimination liability, what should it do?” Shooting from the hip, I said, “Whenever you can, have the same actor who hires an employee be the person who disciplines or terminates them.” This practice or strategy doesn’t immunize an employer against discrimination claims, but: “Where the same actor is responsible for both the hiring and firing of a discrimination plaintiff, and both actions occur within a short period of time, a strong inference arises that there was no discriminatory motive.” The rationale underlying this doctrine is that from the standpoint of the alleged discriminator, it “hardly makes sense to hire workers from a group one dislikes (thereby incurring the psychological cost of associating with them), only to fire them once they are on the job.” (Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.) This concept has also been applied where the alleged discriminator promoted the plaintiff before taking later adverse action against him or her.
Continue Reading “Same Actor” Defense