Labor & Employment Law Blog

In Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California to deny class certification on the ground that a class action would not be a superior method of litigating the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on account of (1) potential liability proportionate to the actual harm, if any, to the plaintiff and class members, (2) the size of the potential damages, and (3) the defendant's good faith compliance. The Ninth Circuit held that none of those three considerations was a proper basis for the District Court to deny class certification.  

AALRR attorney Thomas Lenz was quoted by the Riverside Press-Enterprise on September 10, 2010, in an article on labor negotiations. 

In a long-awaited decision, the National Labor Relations Board held that a union’s display of a peaceful stationary banner at the location of an employer with whom it had no dispute did not violate the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Likening such activity to the mere distribution of handbills that was found lawful by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1988 decision in Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. Trades, the Board concluded that the bannering merely attempted to “persuade” members of the public to assist it in its objectives, and not to “coerce” or “restrain” anyone in violation of the law.

The following employment-related legislation met the August 31, 2010 deadline for passage by the California Legislature. Among the legislation are bills limiting the use of credit checks, allowing exemptions from meal and rest periods for certain employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, requiring paid bereavement leave, and extending paid marrow and organ donation leave to certain private employers. Governor Schwarzenegger has until September 30, 2010 to sign, veto, or let the bills become law without his signature.