Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in its monumental sex discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of all female employees. The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages. The decision is a victory for many employers snared in the net of class action litigation by employees who are attempting to support their cases by flimsy evidence.
LAW ALERT: Proposed Amendments to the California Food Handler Card Law
By Beth V. West on
Posted in New Legislation and Regulations
The original California Food Handler Card Law (“Food Handler Law”) was enacted by the passage of SB 602 in 2010 and codified in California’s Health and Safety Code 113790 et seq. The law as passed raised a number of concerns by those in the food industry, as well as those who provide food safety training. One main concern was the July 1, 2011 deadline for compliance. As a result, a number of industry associations and organizations have been active in advocating for new legislation to amend the Food Handler Law to provide both clarification and hopefully more guidance on how to comply.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Proposed Amendments to the California Food Handler Card Law
LAW ALERT: Employers Sued by the DFEH May Enjoy Federal-Court Advantages if They Move Quickly
By Brendan J. Begley on
Posted in Labor Law
Employers who are sued in state court by employees may obtain significant advantages in the litigation by removing the lawsuit from state court to federal court. For instance, federal courts require a unanimous jury verdict (instead of a supermajority verdict), and jurors in federal court are often drawn from pools that demographically are more conservative and less tolerant of high awards of damages in civil actions. However, not all cases can be removed to federal court, and certain circumstances must be present to execute such a maneuver. A common basis for removal known as “diversity jurisdiction” may exist if the employee is a California resident and the employer is incorporated and headquartered in a different state (even though the employer does business or has operations in California).
Employer’s Exclusive Reliance On Workers’ Compensation Calculations Can Add Up To Liability For Failing To Accommodate Disabled Employees
By Brendan J. Begley on
Posted in Disability Discrimination
When an employee is disabled by an industrial injury, an employer’s obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Act generally can be measured with what could be called arithmetic-like calculations. However, gaging the extent of an employer’s obligations in such circumstances can begin to resemble calculus when disability-discrimination laws are figured in the equation.
For example, upon learning that an injured employee has received a high disability rating, an employer’s quasi-mathematical equation might read: “Work Requirements + 90 Days of Light Duty + High Disability Rating = No Obligation to Continue Light-Duty Accommodation or to Hold Position Open.” However, that formula is not properly calibrated to ensure that an employer reaches the correct solution under anti-discrimination laws.
LAW ALERT: Employers May Have Ability to Reduce Class-Action Exposure Under New U.S. Supreme Court Decision
By Brendan J. Begley on
Posted in Employment Contracts and Agreements, Labor Law
Employers now may be permitted to include clauses known as class-action-waivers in arbitration agreements with employees, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Valid class-action-waivers restrict employees who wish to pursue legal recourse against employers to do so only through individual arbitrations and not as a member of a class action filed in court. Simply put, these provisions require an employee to waive his or her right to participate in class-action litigation against the employer. Where such waivers are allowed, employers may reduce substantially their exposure to costly class actions; for example, those alleging wage-and-hour or meal-and-rest-period violations.