Taking the next step to implement the federal Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published its long-awaited final regulations on March 24, 2011.  However, it is widely believed that the ADAAA and the recently published regulations will not greatly impact employers in California who are already covered by the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Continue Reading LAW ALERT: EEOC Publishes New Regulations Governing Federal Disability Laws

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 January 1, 2011, certain employers and insurers began being required to report settlements, judgments or awards, where medical expenses were paid to a Medicare-eligible claimant. As a result many employers and insurers are left wondering how this will affect settlements of employment related litigation cases. Below are some brief answers to some of the questions raised by these new reporting requirements.

Continue Reading Mandatory Medicare Reporting Requirements – How Will They Impact The Settlement of Employment-Related Claims

On January 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (October 28, 2010) — Cal.App.4th —, 2010 WL 4244583.  The Court granted review pending its decision in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum).   In Hernandez, previously addressed by this blog, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order denying class certification of meal and rest period claims.  The Court of Appeal held that California employers are only required to make available meal and rest periods to employees.  As a result, the Court held that individual issues predominated over common issues.  In other words, the Court had to look at whether each individual had meal and rest periods made available to them, but independently choose not to take them. 

This recent action by the California Supreme Court grows the number of cases waiting for the decision in Brinker to five: Brinkley v. Public Storage, Bradley v. Networkers Int’l LLC, Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Brookler v. Radioshack Corp., and Hernandez v. Chipotle.  We will all just have to sit tight and patiently wait for the Court to act.

A new year with the California legislature has just begun. Is the budget on the top of legislator’s mind? Is their first priority creating an environment conducive to putting out of work Californian’s back to work? Unfortunately, the answer to both these questions is a resounding NO. Instead, legislators are focused on allowing people to come to work after smoking pot.

Continue Reading New Year: Same Old Anti-Employer Ideas