Yesterday’s decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless (S.Ct. 1/24/11) illustrates that retaliation may now be the most employee/plaintiff friendly area in employment law.  There, a unanimous Court held that an employee, who was fired for his fiancée’s protected activity, was also protected by Title VII.Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Jumping Off the Cliff – Supreme Court Expands Retaliation To Protect Employee for His Fiancee’s Protected Activity

On October 30, 2010, the California Court of Appeal published its’ decision in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., B216004 (Published 10/30/10). Restaurants and California employers have been inundated with class action lawsuits involving meal and rest period claims. The case addressed California’s meal and rest period laws on both an individual and class action lawsuit basis. California employers have long been waiting for the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurants v. Superior Court. Until the Brinker decision is issued, our appetite will have to be satisfied with the Chipotle decision. Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Better than their Barbacoa, Chipotle’s Court of Appeal Victory Provides Much Needed Clarification Regarding Employer’s Responsibility For Providing Meal & Rest Periods

Everyone with operations in San Francisco needs to remember that San Francisco has its own minimum wage law.   However unlike the Federal minimum wage or California’s minimum wage, San Francisco’s is indexed to inflation. That means, no new vote, no new discussion of the impact on struggling businesses. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation makes

The National Labor Relations Board continues its lurch toward a more pro-union stance. Just in time for the New Year, the NLRB has proposed a rule that would make all employers under the NLRB’s jurisdiction, both union and non-union, notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act through a uniform workplace posting.  The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule once it is published in the Federal Register
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: NLRB Trying to Ring in the New Year with Pro Union Activism

The Supreme Court of the United States has now agreed to address two questions raised by the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming certification of a “gargantuan” nationwide class of more than a million current and former Wal-Mart employees, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010).

The Court agreed to review two questions regarding Dukes v. Wal-Mart: (1) “Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) – which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief – and, if so, under what Circumstances,” and (2) “Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a).” Continue Reading LAW ALERT: U.S. Supreme Court to Determine Nationwide Wal-Mart Class Action