Labor & Employment Law Blog

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision that significantly impacts the ability of employees to prove their employment discrimination claims and recover damages under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  In Harris v. City of Santa Monica (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC341469), a bus driver alleged the City of Santa ...

A new year often presents a suitable opportunity to review important employment policies. Although policies concerning the “acceptable use of electronic resources” were a novelty only a decade ago, they have now become so common that employers may neglect to review them from time to time to be sure they are still current. A policy written in 2005 could be out of date if it does not accommodate advances in ...

In California, employers are required to have workplace postings regarding employee rights and responsibilities under the Fair Employment and Housing Act which are produced by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). California recently updated three of these mandatory DFEH posters as a result of revisions to state law that went into effect on January 1, 2013.

Specifically, the DFEH ...

In the past several months, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a series of decisions that could affect everyday policies that union and non-union employers maintain in the workplace. The decisions are summarized below.

Complaints alleging violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) will be handled differently by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) beginning January 1, 2013.

On August 31, 2012, AALRR attorneys Irma Rodriguez Moisa and Sharon J. Ormond obtained a unanimous jury defense verdict in favor of The Regents of the University of California after a 14-day jury trial.  The Plaintiff, James Friedman, was laid off from his position at the University of California at Los Angeles in April 2010 after a reorganization of his unit resulted in his position being eliminated.  He ...

Many employers require employees to acknowledge in writing the employee’s receipt of a notice or memorandum of discipline when workplace discipline is imposed. In Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the California Court of Appeal held: (1) it is lawful for an employer to require an employee to sign such an acknowledgement, (2) an employee’s refusal to sign such an acknowledgement form when lawfully presented to the employee is “misconduct” as that term is defined in Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256, and (3) such “misconduct” is grounds for denying unemployment insurance benefits to an employee who is terminated for refusing to sign a discipline acknowledgement form lawfully presented to him or to her.