We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2021 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Bruni v. The Edward Thomas Hospitality Corp., 64 Cal. App. 5th 247 (2021)
Theodore Bruni worked as a restaurant server at the Hotel Casa del Mar in Santa Monica before he was laid off when the Hotel eliminated all part-time positions in food and beverage operations. At the time of his layoff in October 2018, Bruni had been employed by the Hotel for
The California Court of Appeal has determined that a wrongful discharge claim cannot be based upon an alleged violation of a municipal ordinance. Bruni v. The Edward Thomas Hospitality Corporation.
The California Supreme Court has previously ruled that wrongful termination claims must be based upon a violation of a “fundamental public policy.” In the years since that decision, plaintiffs’ lawyers have asserted a wide
Last week, New York announced new tax increases that will subject certain of its residents to higher personal income tax rates than even Californians pay. Before the pages on that bill had cooled, the California legislature was well on its way to showing it would not relinquish its top-of-the-heap status without a fight by proposing a new “wealth tax” on California residents.
In response, the
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2021 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir 2021)
Following the California Supreme Court’s answer in the affirmative to the certified question from the Ninth Circuit as to the retroactive effect of Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the Ninth Circuit in this opinion amended and reissued its prior opinion and offered the
The California Chamber of Commerce and nearly 200 other organizations joined in a January 13 letter to the Governor and the leadership of the state Senate and Assembly, urging them to stave off a growing exodus of businesses by loosening the regulatory yoke on California employers.
Last Thursday, Assembly Bill 1179 was introduced to require California employers with 1,000 or more to provide “backup ” for children under 14. To be eligible for the benefit, employees who work in California would need to have been employed by the company for at least 30 days. If passed and signed into law, this mandate would go into effect on January 1, 2022 and
The California Supreme Court has denied a petition for writ of mandate filed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The SEIU, which was hoping to unionize Uber and Lyft drivers in the wake of AB 5, (read more of our AB 5 coverage here, here, and here), argued that voter-approved Proposition 22 (which permits rideshare drivers to remain independent contractors) should
Last summer, Nike began requiring its retail employees to wear masks to combat the spread of COVID-19. A few weeks later, Cali Bunn entered one of its San Diego-area stores to purchase some shoes. Ms. Bunn is deaf and, like other deaf and hearing-impaired customers, relies on her ability to read other’s lips to communicate.
Ms. Bunn sued Nike in federal court in California (