Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011)
In this appeal, Costco challenged the district court’s order granting class certification in an action in which Costco’s promotional practices were alleged to have discriminated against female employees. The district court’s order granting class certification preceded the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a number of bills addressing a wide array of issues that could significantly impact employers in the coming year. Read on for an overview of some of these new laws and their key provisions.
The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments in the landmark wage-and-hour case Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court on November 8 in San Francisco. In Brinker, the Court will decide whether employers must merely provide meal and rest breaks to their employees or actually ensure that breaks are taken, as well as the related issue of whether such claims are
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:
In Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19060 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011), the Ninth Circuit reviewed the standards for class certification in an employment class action following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes v. Walmart. In Ellis,three named plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and backpay on behalf of a nationwide class of female employees who the plaintiffs claimed had been denied promotion because of their gender. The district court granted class certification. In reviewing the certification order, the court provided guidance for class action litigation in the Ninth Circuit following Walmart.
The number of protected classes under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq., has risen by one. The FEHA, together with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, currently prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and services provided by business establishments on the basis of various personal characteristics such as sex, race, color, national
We invite you to review our newly posted September 2011 California Employment Law Notes — a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 590 (2011)
US Airways uses a conveyor to move luggage at San Francisco International Airport. US Airways hired independent contractor Lloyd W. Aubry Co. to maintain and repair the conveyor and did not direct Aubry’s employees in their work. The conveyor lacked certain safety guards in violation of various Cal-OSHA regulations. After one of
NewLife Sciences, Inc. v. Weinstock, 197 Cal. App. 4th 676 (2011)
NewLife terminated the employment of Ronald Weinstock, the purported inventor of a Therapeutic Magnetic Resonance Device (“TMRD”), which NewLife had purchased approximately one year before the termination. In connection with its purchase of the TMRD, NewLife had obtained a non-compete covenant, which prohibited Weinstock from competing for five years after the termination of
Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000 (2011)
In 2008, Russell H. Johnson, III, an African-American, sued Lucent and the administrator of his disability insurance benefits for retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and intentional infliction of emotional distress in retaliation for his filing suit against Lucent in 2005 for stopping payment of his disability benefits. In