Photo of James Kachmar

James is a shareholder in Weintraub Tobin’s litigation section.  He represents corporate and individual clients in both state and federal courts in various business litigation matters, including trade secret misappropriation, unfair business competition, stockholder disputes, and intellectual property disputes.

Last week, we alerted you to the fact that the US Department of Labor had issued a Question & Answers webpage, and subsequently updated it, to address numerous issues arising out of the passage of the FFCRA. (Click here and here.) Late Saturday night, the DOL again updated the “Questions and Answers

Earlier this week, we advised you that the US Department of Labor had issued a Question & Answers webpage that addressed some issues arising out of the passage of the FFCRA, most importantly clarifying that it would become effective on April 1, 2020. (Click here.) Yesterday, the DOL updated that “Questions and Answers

We have kept you advised of recent federal actions taken in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, including the passage of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) which, among other things, provides paid family leave for certain employees. (See previous blogs at here, here, and here.) The FFCRA was to take effect

On March 12, 2020, in the case Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed the issue: “Do employees lose standing to pursue a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) … if they settle and dismiss their individual claims for Labor Code violations?”  Unfortunately, for employers in

I have discussed in the past how the use of “no-rehire” provisions in settlement agreements between employers and their former employees were coming under attack in court.  In 2015, the Ninth Circuit in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, held that a “no-rehire” provision in a settlement agreement between the plaintiff doctor and