The regulations regarding California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for supervisors require that certain employers provide training to their supervisors every two years. The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin is offering a two hour in-person training session that will comply with all the requirements outlined in the regulations.

If you are an employer with 50 or more employees, and have supervisors who have not yet been trained, this training is a must. We look forward to hearing from you and helping you comply with your continuing sexual harassment training obligations. 

Continue Reading Upcoming Training: Mandatory AB1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

Employers continue to grapple with this very difficult area of employment law. It is not enough to focus on just one law when an employee is unable to work or is absent from the workplace due to some medical condition or injury suffered by the employee or his or her family member. Instead, employers need to understand and comply with how the courts, and various federal and state regulatory agencies, are interpreting the interplay between a number of laws like the FMLA/CFRA, ADA/FEHA, PDL, USERRA, and workers’ compensation.

This seminar is designed to help employers and HR professionals understand this complex interplay and to provide some practical guidance on administering leaves and absences.

Date:    April 25, 2013

Time:  9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

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

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

By: Chuck Post and Lizbeth West

The EEOC issued its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.” on April 25, 2012. (“EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002”.)

Continue Reading Arrest and Conviction History: As to Banks and Financial Institutions, Is the EEOC’s Guidance Built on An Erroneous Foundation?

By:  Shauna N. Correia

The Supreme Court shut down a proposed class action against Comcast last week, another step in the right direction for employers faced with class action lawsuits. (Comcast Corp. et al v. Behrend et al, No. 11-864 (March 27, 2013).)

Continue Reading Breaking News for Employers: The Comcast Class Action is Off the Air

By:  Lizbeth V. West

In Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions LLC, the Seventh Circuit held that a company that acquired another business’s assets at a receiver’s auction was responsible for paying a $500,000 settlement reached in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit between the predecessor business and its employees. The acquiring company knew about the FLSA lawsuit prior to the asset acquisition and specifically disclaimed liability for the lawsuit as a condition of the asset-transfer agreement. The court essentially held that the disclaimer was irrelevant. The court ruled that an explicit contractual disclaimer of the FLSA liability was not a good enough reason standing alone to avoid the "default rule" that a predecessor’s FLSA liability should normally be imposed upon the successor, unless there are good reasons not to do so. The court concluded among other things that, if an acquiring employer could contractually disclaim liability in this fashion, the "statutory goals" of the FLSA would be frustrated, and "a violator of the Act could escape liability or at least make relief much more difficult to obtain." The court also rejected a variety of other arguments to the effect that finding successor liability would be inequitable or economically unwise.

Continue Reading Employment Due Diligence in Mergers and Acquisitions