A few months ago, this blog noted that there was press coverage about the nationwide increase in the use of noncompete agreements in various industries.  A story that has made the rounds in the past week illustrates this point clearly.  Jimmy Johns, a “gourmet sandwich” franchise, has apparently been inserting noncompete provisions in its employment agreements, including those employees who work on the line making sandwiches.  The noncompete provision purportedly seeks to prevent employees from working for a competitor, such as Subway, for a two year period.  The news reports caution that there have been no reported cases so far where Jimmy Johns has sought to enforce this noncompete restriction against a former employee.

For those California employers wishing to follow in Jimmy Johns’ footsteps, you should know that California law frowns upon such restrictions and they are permitted only in certain limited cases, primarily involving the sale of a business.  A noncompete provision similar to those described as being inserted into Jimmy Johns’ employee agreements would almost certainly be held unenforceable by a California Court.

For more details concerning this issue, please see “When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause,” published in the New York Times on October 14, 2014.

On September 15, 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 2536, which implements changes to California Labor Code section 230.3.  Prior to the passage of this bill, California law prohibited employers from discharging or discriminating against employees for taking time off to perform emergency duty as a volunteer firefighter, reserve peace officer, or emergency rescue personnel. “Emergency rescue personnel” was defined to include an officer, employee, or member of a political subdivision of the state, or of a sheriff’s department, police department, or a private fire department. This new law expands the definition of “Emergency rescue personnel” to include an officer, employee, or member of a disaster medical response entity sponsored or requested by the state.  The changes to section 230.3 now also require an employee who is a health care provider to notify his or her employer at the time the employee becomes designated as emergency rescue personnel and at any time the employee learns that he or she will be deployed as a result of that designation.

Summary of Program

Federal and state OSHA laws protect California workers from unsafe working conditions. However, the federal and state statutes and regulations are complex and can be difficult to understand. This seminar is designed to remove some of the mystery from federal and state OSHA requirements and assist you in your compliance.

Program Highlights

  • Implement a compliant and effective Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP).
  • Avoid enormous Cal/OSHA fines and hassles by regularly assessing your organization’s IIPP, training your employees, and shoring up weaknesses in your safety practices.
  • Better understand what OSHA regulations apply to your industry so you won’t be caught off guard if and when accidents occur.
  • Use effective preventive measures to keep your employees and customers safe from threats of workplace violence.
  • Recognize the warning signs that indicate an employee is capable of violence and how to respond.

Date:   Thursday, October 16, 2014

Time:  9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

For additional information and details of this seminar, please click here.  To register for this seminar, please email Ramona Carrillo at rcarrillo@weintraub.com.

By:  Shauna N. Correia

Gov. Jerry Brown has resurrected an expired law, Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. This is a positive development for ethical lawyers and their clients, who find themselves dealing with bad-faith litigation tactics coming from another other party or attorney, but without a meaningful way to combat it.  This law restores trial courts’ authority to award sanctions, including attorney’s fees, to a party if the other side engages in bad-faith tactics in litigation.

An almost identical version of Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 had been in effect until December 31, 1994, but expired in 1995, leaving only its companion, Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, in effect. That “watered down” statute was narrower, allowing sanctions for filing meritless and frivolous complaints, motions, or other pleadings, but not for other bad faith litigation tactics and conduct.  Now, lawyers and parties will once again be subject to sanctions for conduct that is “totally and completely without merit” or done “for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.”  Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 will also remain effective.

“Prior to this bill, courts had tools to sanction lawyers who brought frivolous lawsuits but not sanctions if they behaved badly,” said Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of California. “Now, if the filing is legit, but the lawyer is behaving like a jerk, the court can smack them with the other side’s legal fees.”

The new law is in effect from January 1, 2015 until January 1, 2018, when the California Research Bureau will determine if the law was a demonstrable deterrent on bad-faith litigation conduct.

Gov. Jerry Brown has resurrected an expired law, Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. This is a positive development for ethical lawyers and their clients, who find themselves dealing with bad-faith litigation tactics coming from another other party or attorney, but without a meaningful way to combat it.  This law restores trial courts’ authority to award sanctions, including attorney’s fees, to a party if the other side engages in bad-faith tactics in litigation.

An almost identical version of Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 had been in effect until December 31, 1994, but expired in 1995, leaving only its companion, Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, in effect. That “watered down” statute was narrower, allowing sanctions for filing meritless and frivolous complaints, motions, or other pleadings, but not for other bad faith litigation tactics and conduct.  Now, lawyers and parties will once again be subject to sanctions for conduct that is “totally and completely without merit” or done “for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.”  Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 will also remain effective.

“Prior to this bill, courts had tools to sanction lawyers who brought frivolous lawsuits but not sanctions if they behaved badly,” said Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of California. “Now, if the filing is legit, but the lawyer is behaving like a jerk, the court can smack them with the other side’s legal fees.”

The new law is in effect from January 1, 2015 until January 1, 2018, when the California Research Bureau will determine if the law was a demonstrable deterrent on bad-faith litigation conduct.