California Governor Jerry Brown has until September 30th to sign or veto A.B. 1522, a recently passed bill that would require businesses employing at least one person in California to provide employees with paid sick leave and to comply with new recordkeeping and informational requirements. If signed by the governor, the bill will become effective on July 1, 2015.
Most employees would accrue one hour
Morgan v. Wet Seal, Inc., 210 Cal. App. 4th 1341 (2012)
Crystal Morgan and two other former employees sued Wet Seal because the company allegedly required employees to purchase Wet Seal clothing and merchandise as a condition of employment and also failed to reimburse employees for their mileage between Wet Seal business locations. The trial court denied class certification on the ground that common
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a new law protecting employee use of social media by prohibiting an employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing the employee’s personal social media. Additionally, an employer may not require an employee or applicant to divulge any personal social media unless the employer reasonably
Robles v. Employment Dev. Dep’t, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1029 (2012)
Jose Robles worked as a service technician for Liquid Environmental Solutions for four years prior to his termination. His job was to collect food grease from restaurants and other food outlets. Robles’s employment was terminated after he attempted to buy shoes for a friend with the $150 annual shoe allowance that Robles received
Many employers have a policy that allows employees to bring dogs to work, either regularly or on occasion. … While there appear to be benefits to policies permitting pet presence, employers should keep a few things in mind in developing and implementing them.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. PST
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. CST
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. EST
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and the rest of the new social networking media have not only revolutionized the ways employees communicate with each other, both on and off the job, but have raised a host of new problems for employers. Not surprisingly, social media is also changing the face of litigation, something with which employers must increasingly learn to cope.
Please join us for a fast-paced hour-long webinar that talks about the problems and challenges social media pose in employment litigations and how employers can best deal with them. This is not just another social media program – but a program focused on what employers need to be doing now to prepare for the unique problems social media pose in employment litigations, including:
U.S. v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (2011)
In this criminal proceeding brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), the United States government filed a 20-count indictment against David Nosal (a former employee of Korn/Ferry International) and his accomplices (also from Korn/Ferry) as a result of their obtaining information from their employer’s computer system for the purpose of defrauding Korn/Ferry and helping Nosal
As we reported previously, in December 2007 the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision relating to company e-mail policies in The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (2007), holding that an employer (i) may restrict the use of its computer systems to business related uses only, and (ii) could distinguish between personal and organizational solicitation in enforcing its no-solicitation policy.
Earlier this week, in The Register-Guard v. NLRB, No. 07-1528 (D.C. Cir July 7, 2009), the D.C. Circuit issued its decision reversing, in part, the Board’s decision.
Neither party requested review of (and, thus, the court did not address) the Board’s general holding that allowed restricting the use of company e-mail to business purposes. The Court also chose not to address the Board’s position on distinguishing between the types of solicitation. Instead, it held that based on the facts of this particular case — where the policy in question did not actually make a distinction between types of solicitation — the employer could not discipline an employee for a union-related solicitation. As discussed below, the decision highlights the risks to employers who act based on the current Board law in the absence of a clear written policy that makes an explicit distinction between types of solicitation. Moreover, even if employers have such a policy now, the future Obama Board is likely to modify the current law.
Chau v. Starbucks Corp., 174 Cal. App. 4th 688 (2009)
Jou Chau, a former Starbucks “barista,” brought a class action against the company, challenging Starbucks’ policy of permitting shift supervisors to share in tips that customers place in a collective tip box. Chau alleged the policy violated California’s Unfair Competition Law based on a violation of Labor Code § 351. The trial court certified
As of this writing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 109 cases of the H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu, in the United States. The World Health Organization has confirmed 331 cases of swine flu worldwide and has raised the pandemic threat level to Phase 5 on its six-step scale (Phase 5 designation essentially means that infections from the outbreak that originated in Mexico have been jumping from person to person with relative ease). This Client Alert outlines a few of the myriad legal issues that employers may face with regard to swine flu. As every situation is different, employers are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of counsel with respect to any questions related to these issues. We are, of course, available to provide a more detailed analysis as to any of the matters discussed below or to advise on any other questions that you may have on pandemic flu planning and its implications for the workplace.