Beth West, Board Chair of the Sacramento Employer’s Advisory Council, invites you to attend the SEAC’s all-day seminar, “From Twitter to Facebook: Avoiding The Risks of Today’s High-Tech Workplace,” at the Holiday Inn Capitol Plaza on October 24th, 2011.
Continue Reading Join Weintraub attorney and SEAC Board Chair, Beth West, at the SEAC’s full-day fall seminar “From Twitter to Facebook: Avoiding the Risks of Today’s High-Tech Workplace”
Vote for Weintraub’s L&E Law Blog!
Big news! Weintraub’s L&E Law Blog is one of the nominated candidates for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011.
We need your help! Click here, log onto the Labor and Employment Law Community and then leave a comment at the bottom of the page saying “I vote for The
The California Court of Appeals Limits the Remedies for Undocumented Workers
The Third Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that provides hope for those employers who unknowingly hire undocumented workers throughout California. In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the court used the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines to bar Salas’ Complaint, ruling that undocumented workers are not entitled to recourse on a wrongful failure to hire claim, where they misrepresent their lawful ability to work in the first place.
Relevant Facts:
Vicente Salas was a seasonal worker at Sierra Chemical, a swimming pool chemical business. In 2006, he injured his back while working. After returning to work for a short time on modified duty, he reinjured his back when he was re-assigned to his regular duties. Following this injury, he brought a workers’ compensation claim against the company. In December 2006, Salas was laid off as part of Sierra Chemical’s annual reduction. In 2007 Sierra Chemical contacted Salas, informing him that he could return to work, provided he could establish he had received a medical release. Salas could not produce such a release and was precluded from returning pursuant to Sierra Chemical’s policies.Continue Reading The California Court of Appeals Limits the Remedies for Undocumented Workers
Who Is Liable When an Employee of an Independent Contractor Is Injured Due to a Cal-OSHA Violation?
The California Supreme Court Confirms that Companies May Delegate Some Workplace Safety Obligations to Independent Contractors
On August 22, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Seabright Insurance Company v. US Airways, Inc. The issue before the Court was whether the Privette rule applies when the party that hired an independent contractor (the “Hirer” or “Principal”) failed to comply with workplace safety requirements concerning the precise subject matter of the contract, and the injury is alleged to have occurred as a consequence of that failure. The Privette rule essentially provides that when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.)
Relevant Facts from the Seabright Case.
US Airways uses a conveyor to move luggage at San Francisco International Airport. The airport is the actual owner of the conveyor, but US Airways uses it under a permit and has responsibility for its maintenance. US Airways hired an independent contractor, Lloyd W. Aubry Co. (“Aubry”), to maintain and repair the conveyor. US Airways neither directed nor had its employees participate in Aubry‘s work.Continue Reading Who Is Liable When an Employee of an Independent Contractor Is Injured Due to a Cal-OSHA Violation?
LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Ordinance Regulating Ability to Replace Workers Upon Buying a Business
On July 18, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, in which it upheld the Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance enacted by Los Angeles in December 2005. That ordinance provides that when grocery stores of a specific size are acquired by a new owner, the current employees have certain rights during a 90-day transition period. These rights include: the seller must prepare a list of non-managerial employees with at least six months employment as of the date of transfer and the buyer of the store must hire from that list during the transition period. Furthermore, the hired employees may only be discharged for cause during the transition period and that, at the end of the transition period, the buyer must prepare a written evaluation of each employee’s performance and “consider” offering all “satisfactory” employees continued employment. There are similar ordinances that have been adopted by several other California municipalities, such as Berkeley (Marina Business Workers), Emeryville (Hotel Workers), and San Jose (Airport Business Workers).Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Ordinance Regulating Ability to Replace Workers Upon Buying a Business