Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 is constitutional. The decision came down in the cases entitled, National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, No. 11-393 (June 28, 2012), Department of Health and Human Services et al. v. Florida et al., No. 11-398, and Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. 11-400). There, the 5 to 4 majority decided that the law is constitutional as an exercise of Congress’ power to tax, despite the congressional record stating it is not a tax. In California, where statutes that say “penalty” are later determined by courts to be “wages” these types of word games come as no surprise.
Continue Reading SCOTUS Hands Employers Huge Health Care Obligations
Labor Law
Partnerships Beware! Partners May Have Claims for Unlawful Retaliation under FEHA
By Ramona Carrillo on
By: James Kachmar
On May 16, 2012, a California Appellate Court issued its ruling in Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group and held that a partner could state a claim for unlawful retaliation against her partnership under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Continue Reading Partnerships Beware! Partners May Have Claims for Unlawful Retaliation under FEHA
Is Compliance with an Attendance Policy an Essential Function of the Job? The Ninth Circuit says “Yes!”
Attendance at work seems like an obvious requirement to keep a job, right? The unfortunate answer often given by lawyers to that question is, “it depends.” In the employee-friendly state of California, permitting telecommuting or exemptions to an attendance policy may be a reasonable accommodation if a person has a disability. However, recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that predictable attendance can be an essential function of certain jobs; in this case, the job of a neo-natal intensive care unit (“NICU”) nurse.Continue Reading Is Compliance with an Attendance Policy an Essential Function of the Job? The Ninth Circuit says “Yes!”
UPCOMING SEMINAR: Protecting Trade Secrets – How to Manage Employee Use of Proprietary Information
Thursday, May 17, 2012
9:00 a.m. – Registration and Breakfast
9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Program
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor, Sacramento, CA
Can You Keep a Secret?
From trade secrets like product recipes and algorithms to confidential details about financing, customers and costs, all businesses have information that could be devastating if it were to fall into a competitor’s hands.Continue Reading UPCOMING SEMINAR: Protecting Trade Secrets – How to Manage Employee Use of Proprietary Information
Closing The Gap Left By Brinker RE Meal-And-Rest-Period Class Actions
By Ramona Carrillo on
The California Court of Appeal this week provided a shield to employers against attacks left open by the state Supreme Court’s momentous decision earlier this month concerning meal and rest periods. The appellate court in Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions Inc. v. Superior Court (Malone), No. B235491, decided that a trial court in Los Angeles should have dismissed class-action allegations in a meal-and-rest-period lawsuit.Continue Reading Closing The Gap Left By Brinker RE Meal-And-Rest-Period Class Actions