Labor & Employment Law Blog

On May 17, 2010, in Simpson Strong Tie Co., Inc. v. Pierce Gore, the California Supreme Court held that a manufacturer could not maintain a lawsuit against an attorney based on allegedly defamatory advertisements by the attorney seeking plaintiffs to participate in a potential class action lawsuit against the manufacturer on the ground that those advertisements were protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute.

The California Supreme Court has scheduled for oral argument two cases of potential interest to employers:

On May 25, 2010, the Court will hear oral arguments in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino. The issue to be decided in that case is whether "Labor Code section 351, which prohibits employers from taking 'any gratuity or part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron,' create a private right ...

As we previously reported here, in Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., a decision we think is wrongly decided in many ways, the California Court of Appeal might have made it significantly easier for plaintiffs to obtain class certification in wage and hour cases.

California contractors were stunned in November 2008 when the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") issued a determination that a specific contractor, Russ Will Mechanical, should have paid prevailing wages to its workers who fabricated HVAC parts in the company’s permanent off-site fabrication shop for a specific public works project. Russ Will Mechanical filed an ...

Perhaps somewhat lost in the commotion over health care reform legislation is the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act ("HIRE Act"), which provides certain tax incentives to employers that hire and retain recently unemployed or underemployed persons.

As we previously reported here, on January 28, 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc., ("Pellegrino II") holding that employment agreements shortening to six months the deadline for employees to bring claims arising out of their employment violate public policy and are therefore unenforceable. The court held also that the staffing agency's account executives did not qualify as exempt administrative employees.

On April 26, 2010, in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided 6-5 en banc to affirm the decision of the trial court to grant class certification in a discrimination lawsuit alleging Wal-Mart Stores discriminates against its women employees. The nationwide class is reputed by the Los Angeles Daily Journal to number upward of 1.6 million women employees, which would make the class the largest class in United States history.

Ordinarily, a decision by an arbitrator is not subject to being reversed by a court based on a legal error by the arbitrator.  Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 1, 25.  In other words, unlike a decision by a court, a decision by an arbitrator generally cannot be "appealed."

In Chamber of Commerce vs.. Brown (2008), the United States Supreme Court struck down a California statute that sought to indirectly regulate the labor relations policy of employers who received state funds by either prohibiting their use of those monies in their response union to organizing drives or, in the alternative, require proof that they were not so used, holding that such regulation violated free ...