Labor & Employment

Subscribe to Labor & Employment's Posts

By: Meagan D. Christiansen

The Third Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that provides hope for those employers who unknowingly hire undocumented workers throughout California. In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the court used the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines to bar Salas’ Complaint, ruling that undocumented workers are not entitled to recourse on a wrongful failure to hire claim, where they misrepresent their lawful ability to work in the first place.

Relevant Facts:

Vicente Salas was a seasonal worker at Sierra Chemical, a swimming pool chemical business. In 2006, he injured his back while working. After returning to work for a short time on modified duty, he reinjured his back when he was re-assigned to his regular duties. Following this injury, he brought a workers’ compensation claim against the company. In December 2006, Salas was laid off as part of Sierra Chemical’s annual reduction. In 2007 Sierra Chemical contacted Salas, informing him that he could return to work, provided he could establish he had received a medical release. Salas could not produce such a release and was precluded from returning pursuant to Sierra Chemical’s policies.Continue Reading The California Court of Appeals Limits the Remedies for Undocumented Workers

The California Supreme Court Confirms that Companies May Delegate Some Workplace Safety Obligations to Independent Contractors

By: Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

On August 22, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Seabright Insurance Company v. US Airways, Inc. The issue before the Court was whether the Privette rule applies when the party that hired an independent contractor (the “Hirer” or “Principal”) failed to comply with workplace safety requirements concerning the precise subject matter of the contract, and the injury is alleged to have occurred as a consequence of that failure. The Privette rule essentially provides that when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.)

Relevant Facts from the Seabright Case.

US Airways uses a conveyor to move luggage at San Francisco International Airport. The airport is the actual owner of the conveyor, but US Airways uses it under a permit and has responsibility for its maintenance. US Airways hired an independent contractor, Lloyd W. Aubry Co. (“Aubry”), to maintain and repair the conveyor. US Airways neither directed nor had its employees participate in Aubry‘s work.Continue Reading Who Is Liable When an Employee of an Independent Contractor Is Injured Due to a Cal-OSHA Violation?

Reinstatement is nearly a universal right held by employees returning from leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Courts have long held, with few exceptions, that employees returning from FMLA leave are entitled to reinstatement. In Sanders v. City of Newport (9th Cir. 08-35996), the Ninth Circuit reinforced this obligation by holding the burden is on the employer to justify why an employee cannot return from FMLA leave.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: FMLA Leave Now Even More Complex – Ninth Circuit Places Burden on Employers When Denying an Employee Reinstatement

On August 19, 2009, in response to the current economic downturn, the California Labor Commissioner published an Opinion Letter which provides employers with an option to laying off their exempt employees; furloughs.

Under the Labor Commissioner’s Opinion Letter, it is now lawful for California employers to reduce the work hours of their exempt staff, with…

The California Supreme Court has finally settled the troubling issue of whether intentional discrimination must be shown to prove a disability access claim under the California Unruh Act. In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., the Court decided the issue after it was certified to the California Supreme Court from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit because of the conflicting decisions in federal and state courts.
Continue Reading A DISABILITY ACCESS CLAIM UNDER THE UNRUH ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION