Summary of Program

Most employers know that it is crucial to have well trained supervisors to help ensure that rank and file employees perform their jobs effectively and efficiently. However, many employers don’t realize how important it is that supervisors be trained to understand the many employment laws that govern the workplace. Untrained supervisors can take actions (or fail to take actions) that result in significant legal consequences for an employer. Come join the employment lawyers at Weintraub Tobin for a discussion of best practices for training supervisors and reducing the potential for liability.

Date:     February 20, 2014

Time:    9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Location:  400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor, Sacramento, CA

For more information and to register for this seminar, please click here.

Readers of this blog know that we frequently discuss the doctrine of preemption under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Information Act.  That is, a claim for trade secret misappropriation will preempt any other common law claims based on the “same nucleus of facts.”  However, a recent decision in Jobscience, Inc. v CVPartners, Inc., N.D. Cal. January 9, 2014, reminds us that the doctrine of preemption may also be used to defeat a trade secret claim.

Jobscience developed and licensed a recruiting software application that it claimed had been misappropriated by defendants.  Jobscience sued the defendants for both federal copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.  The defendants moved to dismiss the trade secret claim on the ground that it was preempted by the Copyright Infringement Act.

The Court noted that section 301(a) of the Copyright Act provides the exclusive rights and remedies within the general scope of copyright law and that “no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any state.”  A common law or state-based claim will be preempted by the Copyright Act if the content of the protected right falls within the subject matter of the Copyright Act and the rights asserted under state law are equivalent to those protected by Copyright Act.

Thus, a Court will look to see whether a claim for trade secret misappropriation is “based on the same nucleus of facts as the copyright infringement claim.”  The Jobscience court found that the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, i.e., which consisted of its software code, was based on the “same nucleus of facts” as plaintiff’s alleged trade secret misappropriation claim.  Essentially, Jobscience accused defendants of both infringing on the copyright protecting its software as well as “misappropriating” the software.  Given this fact, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation claim because it was preempted by the Copyright Act.

The Jobscience decision is a reminder to litigants that there are several important defenses, including preemption, in a trade secret case.  Defense counsel are reminded to examine the interplay between various theories of IP liability and whether the statutes they are premised on offer any basis for arguing preemption in a trade secret misappropriation case.

By:   Duyen T. Nguyen

In George Vranish, Jr. et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2014 DJDAR 761, January 23, 2014, the Court upheld the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) which set forth overtime pay for Exxon Mobil’s employees. Pursuant to the CBA, Plaintiffs were paid at the overtime premium rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or over 12 hours in a workday but were not paid overtime for hours worked between the eighth and twelfth hour in a workday. Thus, Plaintiffs argued that they were not paid premium compensation for all “overtime hours worked” as required under Labor Code section 510. That section provides that any work in excess of eight hours in one workday is compensated at 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for an employee and any work in excess of 12 hours in one day is compensated at 2 times the regular rate of pay for an employee.

Continue Reading A Collective Bargaining Agreement That Provides For Premium Rates For Overtime Hours Worked Is Not Subject To The Same Overtime Pay Obligations Defined By California Labor Code Section 510

By: Lizbeth West, Esq.

What is it?  OSHA Form 300A is a form that summarizes the total number of job-related injuries and illnesses that occurred during 2013. The form must be posted no later than February 1, 2014 and must remain posted through April 30, 2014. 

Continue Reading REMINDER: The February 1, 2014 Deadline To Post Your OSHA Form 300A Is Fast Approaching

Co-authored by Lizbeth West, Published by LexisNexis

Book Highlights:

  • How to navigate the complex issues surrounding family leave, military leave, worker’s compensation and personal time.
  • Insightful analysis of the key employment features to keep in mind when dealing with leave law in California.
  • Determinative considerations in accounting for the many different California and federal rules through the use of case studies.
  • Important cases and their implications. Case are presented along with practical analysis for the day to day issues faced of the typical employer/employee relationship.
  • California and federal model notices.
  • Useful forms and checklists.

Purchase information:  Click here.