On February 25, 2015, the United States Department of Labor issued new rules designed to revise the regulatory definition of “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”). The new rules amend the regulatory definition of spouse under the FMLA so that it now specifically includes employees in legal same-sex marriages so
Arbitration Agreements Can Backfire on Employers
It is no secret that arbitration agreements may greatly reduce the risks that many employers face in disputes with employees. For example, when used correctly, such agreements can curb exposure to class actions by forcing employees to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis instead of a class basis. See, e.g., Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014).
However, when such an agreement either contains certain language or fails to include other language, it may result in a class action or a representative action being litigated in front of an arbitrator instead of a court. This can be problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that an arbitrator’s hourly charges typically are paid by the employer – and those fees can add up quickly in a complicated matter involving numerous parties.
Thus, instead of decreasing the cost of defending a class action or a representative action, a poorly drafted arbitration agreement could result in greatly escalating such costs. A pair of recent decisions from the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (in San Diego) underscore the need for employers to use great care in drafting such agreements to avoid such outcomes.
Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements Can Backfire on Employers
Upcoming Seminar: From A to Z, The Alphabet Soup of Leave Laws
Summary of Program
Administering leaves of absence and disability accommodations in California can be very challenging. California has a new paid sick leave law and numerous other leave laws and wage replacement benefits that interact with one another. To properly administer leaves and accommodate employees, employers need to understand the various types of leave/accommodations available,
SEAC Webinar: Yours, Mine and Ours: Legal Issues Surrounding Personal and Employer Property
In a time where employees are using personal devices and cell phones for work, and employers permit employees to use computer and phone systems for “incidental” personal reasons, confusion can arise over who owns the devices or the information transmitted over the device. This confusion can create liability and potential problems for employers, such as whether an employer is obligated to pay for any part of an employee’s personal phone, and what devices and information must be provided by the employer in a lawsuit. Please join us for an informative overview of the potential dangers and strategies employers may be able to use to help manage these pitfalls and risks.
About Our Speaker
Shauna Correia | Weintraub Tobin
Shauna Correia is of counsel in the firm’s Labor & Employment and Litigation groups. Shauna is licensed to practice in state and federal court in both California and Nevada. Her employment practice focuses on the defense of employers against wrongful termination, wage and hour, discrimination, intentional tort, civil rights, and leave law claims. She is an accomplished negotiator and experienced trial attorney. She also drafts and negotiates executive employment, partnership and shareholder agreements and reviews and revises employee handbooks and policies. In addition to litigating and negotiating resolution of active disputes, many of Shauna’s clients rely on her for her advisory and risk-management capacities, and her ability to find ways to reduce exposure or avoid litigation.
Continue Reading SEAC Webinar: Yours, Mine and Ours: Legal Issues Surrounding Personal and Employer Property
Why Employers Should Think Twice Before Making Employees Play Hurt
Recently, my Alma Mater, The University of Southern California, was sued by a former member of the Trojan football team. Former cornerback Brian Baucham filed a lawsuit against USC and former coach Lane Kiffin, alleging he suffered permanent injuries after being forced to play in a game while he was ill. Baucham’s lawsuit claimed that he was “forced by Coach Kiffin to play a home game even though Mr. Baucham was very ill and diagnosed by the USC Health Clinic with an influenza-like illness, viral pharyngitis and dehydration.” After playing in a game against Berkeley, “Baucham suffered from cardiopulmonary damage, as well as brain injury with neurocognitive deficits,” according to the lawsuit. Baucham alleges that USC and Kiffin violated both the NCAA and USC injury protocol programs when they forced him to play.
This got me to thinking: Now that the National Labor Relations Board has found that scholarship football players are employees under the NLRA, what if Mr. Baucham filed suit against USC as an employee?
Continue Reading Why Employers Should Think Twice Before Making Employees Play Hurt