Over the last twenty years the internet has changed the world. Through the assistance of screen-reading software or other similar devices, visually-impaired individuals can access the internet to, among other things, conduct business, make hotel reservations, or purchase products. However, lawsuits against businesses with websites that do not fully accommodate visually-impaired individuals have exploded in the last few years. Businesses in all industries have faced litigation of this kind, from financial institutions to hotels and restaurants. Even world-renown universities have not been immune to such lawsuits.
On February 23, 2018, California’s Fourth Appellate District held an employment agreement between a staffing firm and a truck driver was governed by California law and not by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Eleven states have employment laws protecting medical cannabis patients against employment discrimination. California is not currently one of them. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that employers could terminate employees for off-work cannabis use even if such use is for medicinal purposes and lawful under California’s medical marijuana laws. A lot has changed since the California Supreme Court decided this issue a decade ago. California voters have since passed law legalizing recreational use of cannabis, and many California employers are wondering what rights they have to not hire and/or to terminate employees who test positive for cannabis. The California Legislature may soon clarify employer and employee rights in California vis a vis off-work cannabis consumption through Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2069, which was introduced on February 7, 2018.
Worker classification is an ongoing issue for most employers. Unfortunately, misclassification of workers can result in substantial liability for employers, with such liability arising in many different ways.
Individuals impersonating IRS officials are out there, using their best efforts to intimidate people into paying a fake tax bill. Scams take many shapes and forms, such as phone calls, letters, and emails. Some scammers may even threaten to arrest or deport their would-be victim if they don’t pay. The IRS continually updates its website (www.irs.gov) with information on the most current scams and how to report them. Here is an overview of how and when the IRS contacts taxpayers.
For a variety of reason, a business may desire to change its form of entity (e.g. convert from a limited liability company to a corporation) or change its state of organization (e.g. converting from a California corporation to a Nevada corporation) or merge with another entity. In the past, if a nonprofit organization wanted to enact changes similar to these, it often was required to submit a new application for tax exemption with the IRS, which can be burdensome.
Many employers purchase Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) polices to protect themselves against employment related lawsuits by current or former employees or job applicants, such as claims of alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
The “Claims Made and Reported” Time Trap
EPLI policies are often written on a “claims made and ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Recent Court of Appeal Decision Emphasizes the Importance of Establishing Ownership Interests Prior to Initiating Partition or Other Property Actions
- Treasury Department to Suspend All Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act against U.S. Citizens and Domestic Reporting Companies
- Political Printers: Don’t be Bitten by a Union “Bug”
- Corporate Transparency Act – Nationwide Injunction Reinstated by Fifth Circuit
- Fifth Circuit Lifts the Nationwide Injunction on the Corporate Transparency Act BOI Reporting Requirements – FinCEN Extends Filing Deadline
- Alert: FinCEN Announces Limited Extensions to Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Deadlines
- Court of Appeal Sheds Light On The Rights Of Limited Liability Companies And Its Members
- Dueling OpenAI Copyright Cases to Remain Separate, Parallel Actions on Both Coasts
- Section 16600 and the Fate of Trade Secret Exception
- The Contract Is In The Details
Popular Categories
- (6)
- (27)
- (3)
- (1)
- (24)
- (5)
- (2)
- (15)
- (4)
- (4)
- (1)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (4)
- (5)
- (1)
- (3)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Reece C. Bennett
- Eduardo A. Carvajal
- Michele L. Collender
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Christopher M. Francis
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Edward C. Ho
- Micah R. Jacobs
- John E. James
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Jeannie Y. Kang
- Joseph K. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Kenneth L. Perkins, Jr.
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- McKenna Stephens
- Jon Ustundag
- Brian M. Wheeler