We invite you to review our newly-posted October 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
…
Malloy v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 4298371 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
Eleanor Malloy began working remotely for her employer (which was located in Orange County) at her home in Los Angeles County in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Malloy filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging pregnancy discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In response,…
Despite California’s prohibition against non-compete agreements, a federal court in the Eastern District of California recently ruled that a California resident may be subject to the non-compete covenant in his employment agreement due to a provision in the agreement identifying Indiana as the parties’ choice of forum and that state’s law as the parties’ choice of law. The lawsuit, Scales v. Badger Daylighting Corp. (Case…
We recently blogged about Governor Brown signing S.B. 1241, which is now codified as Section 925 of the California Labor Code. The law, which affects venue and choice of law provisions in agreements entered into as a condition of employment, will begin applying to agreements entered into, modified, or extended beginning on January 1, 2017. The text of the law (posted directly below) might appear relatively straight forward, but certain ambiguities and questions concerning the law’s implementation raise several issues, which are discussed in this blog post.
In recent years, some employers doing business in the Golden State have required their employees to sign arbitration and employment agreements that require the employee to sue or arbitrate in – or under the law of – another state. After January 1, 2017, this practice will be illegal unless the employee was represented by legal counsel who assisted in negotiating the out-of-state venue, forum or…
Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 349 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2003)
Charles E. Murphy was injured on premises owned by Trane Company while he was working as a long-haul trucker for Schneider National, Inc. Murphy filed a personal injury action against Schneider (which had failed to maintain a workers’ compensation policy) and Trane in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon…
Oregon Bureau of Labor and Indus. v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 288 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2002)
Darryl Richardson filed a discrimination complaint against his employer with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) — a state administrative agency. In response, U.S. West removed the action to federal court, asserting the court had subject matter jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management…
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.
