Beaumont-Jacques v. Farmers Group, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2013)
Erin Beaumont-Jacques worked as a district manager for various insurance companies pursuant to a District Manager Appointment Agreement. After Beaumont-Jacques voluntarily terminated the relationship, she sued for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and faith dealing, sex discrimination and violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 (all
Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 218 Cal. App. 4th 73 (2013)
Loring Winn Williams sued the Fire District for disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Fire District succeeded in getting the case dismissed on summary judgment – after filing a successful petition for writ of mandate when the motion was initially denied. The Fire District subsequently
Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 1402 (2013)
Esperanza Acuna filed three separate complaints against her employer (San Diego Gas & Electric) with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”): One in March 2006 for racial discrimination and harassment and retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim; one in February 2007 for disability discrimination; and one in
Purton v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 499 (2013)
In December 2009, the Marriott Del Mar Hotel held its annual holiday party as a “thank you” to its employees and management. Marriott did not require its employees to attend the party. Michael Landri was employed as a bartender at the hotel. Landri, who did not work on the day of the party,
The IRS recently released a memorandum advising taxpayers on the proper tax characterization of attorney’s fee payments in connection with a settlement of or judgment in an employment dispute.
Courts have long held that payments to plaintiffs for their attorney’s fees pursuant to a fee shifting statute belong to the plaintiff, not the attorney. Thus, when the plaintiff’s underlying recovery is taxable, the plaintiff must
California has amended Labor Code § 218.5 to limit the circumstances under which an employer may recover its attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in a lawsuit in which an employee has sued for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions (SB 462). Prior to enactment of Senate Bill 462, the prevailing party (either the employer or
Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 292 this week, amending the Fair Employment and Housing Act to allow an employee claiming sexual harassment to prevail without having to show that the allegedly harassing conduct was motivated by the harasser’s “sexual desire.” S.B. 292 was authored by Senate majority leader Ellen M. Corbett and principally sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association, an organization of attorneys that
The ABA is taking nominations for its annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and we’d appreciate it if you’d mention ours if you read it regularly and think others might benefit from it. “Friends-of-the-blawg briefs” are due no later than Friday, Aug. 9. Here’s the information from the ABA and a link to the submission form: http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit/
We’re working
Univ. of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4704 (Jun. 24, 2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action. In a five-to-four decision, the Court rejected the lower court’s
Laura Reathaford is featured in a video interview on California PAGA-related class actions. Click here for video.