- Who We Are
- Our Team
- What We Do
Labor and Employment
Domino’s Pizza is Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of a Franchise Employee Where Domino’s Lacks Control Over Employee, Says California Supreme Court
August 30, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1139421.1
This week, the California Supreme Court held that Domino’s Pizza was not liable for the torts of an employee of a franchise because Domino’s had no contractual or operational control over the employee. The Court based its decision on evidence that it was the franchisee, not Domino’s, that made the day-to-day decisions regarding hiring, supervision, and discipline of its employees. (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, et al., August 28, 2014, S204543.)
California Court of Appeal Holds Provision in Collective Bargaining Agreement Requiring On-Duty Meal Periods Meets Statutory Requirements
August 30, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1139385.1
In Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (August 27, 2014) --- Cal. App.4th ---), the California First District Court of Appeal considered whether a provision in a valid collective bargaining agreement requiring employees who work eight-hour shifts “to eat their meals during work hours [without] additional time therefore at Company expense” met the statutory requirements regarding meal periods found at California Labor Code section 512. The court found that it did.
August 29, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1139255.1
In a development that was all too scarce just a few years ago, another California court has issued a decision upholding a mandatory employment arbitration agreement. In Cruise v. Kroger Co., the California Court of Appeals (Second Appellate District; Division III) upheld the enforcement of an arbitration agreement contained in Kroger’s employment application, requiring a former employee to arbitrate, rather than litigate, his claims for employment discrimination and wrongful termination.
Federal Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules FedEx Drivers Are Employees, Not Independent Contractors, Under Both California's and Oregon's "Right-To-Control" Test
August 28, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1139044.1
Class actions were brought against FedEx in both California and Oregon by FedEx drivers contending they had been misclassified as independent contractors. (Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and Slayman, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., respectively.) The California class consisted of approximately 2,300 drivers, while the Oregon class consisted of approximately 363 drivers.
Car Dealership Employee Fired After Complaining About Fraudulent Warranty Claims May Sue For Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
August 27, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1138602.1
The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that a former car dealership employee’s allegation that he was terminated over his complaints of fraudulent warranty claims was sufficient to support a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Court reasoned that there is public interest in a workplace free from crime and that termination resulting from complaints about fraudulent warranty claims encompass potential violations of statutes proscribing theft and fraud. (Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc. et al. (August 26, 2014, G048013, G048343) ___ Cal.App.4th___).
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
The Ridge Golf Club
Foothill Employer Advisory Council and South Placer Employer Advisory Council
Navigating Human Resources
August 20, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1137497.1
California’s Third District Court of Appeal recently concluded that the final wage payment requirements and waiting time penalties prescribed by Labor Code sections 202 and 203 apply not only to employees who quit, but also to employees who retire. (McLean v. State of California et al., August 19, 2014, C074515.)
Ninth Circuit Holds Alleged Retaliatory Actions Must Be Viewed in Context For Purposes of a First Amendment Retaliation Claim
August 20, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1137496.1
In Wendy Thomas, et al v. County of Riverside, et al, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment of an employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim in favor of the employer. Concluding a reasonable juror could find the employer’s actions were retaliatory when viewed in context, rather than in isolation as the District Court viewed them, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded in part. (Thomas v. County of Riverside (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2014) --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 4056546).
Termination of Police Officer Whose ADHD Limits Ability to Get Along With Others Does Not Violate ADA, Ninth Circuit Says
August 18, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1136820.1
In Weaving v. City of Hillsboro (--- F.3d ----, C.A.9 (Or.), August 15, 2014), the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the city employer properly terminated the employee, a police officer, who had recurring interpersonal problems with his colleagues that were attributable to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”).
August 17, 2014 | Bulletin No. 1136467.1
Recently, in Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., (August 12, 2014, B247160) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 2 Dist.), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that an employee is incurring an expense for purposes of California Labor Code section 2802 when he or she is required to make work-related calls on a personal cell phone.
90 results (9 pages) matching the query "term"
Showing Prev 1 of 9 Next Pages