NEWSLETTERS:

EMPLOYMENT MATTERS - Autumn 2007 (PDF Download)

In this issue: California Supreme Court Issues Three Important Decisions

EMPLOYMENT MATTERS - Spring 2007 (PDF Download)

In this issue: New U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court Cases

EMPLOYMENT MATTERS - Winter 2007 (PDF Download)

In this issue: New California Laws and New San Francisco Laws

ARTICLES:

UPDATE ON SAN FRANCISCO'S HEALTH CARE SECURITY ORDINANCE

The Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument on employers' challenge to the San Francisco Ordinance on April 17, 2008. Meanwhile, the Ordinance remains in effect and some employers must make their required first quarter health care expenditures by April 30, 2008.

The California Supreme Court ruled in Jones v. The Lodge At Torrey Pines Partnership that individuals cannot be held personally liable for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

In addition to a new year, January 1, 2008 also brings new California state and municipal minimum wage requirements.

In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed, and the Mayor signed into law, the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (“HCSO”).

On November 7, 2007, USCIS issued a revised Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification Form. The most significant change to the Form is the elimination of five documents from List A of Acceptable Documents.

On November 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court decided Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., ruling that employers can satisfy their duty to indemnify employees for all necessary business expenses under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying increased wages or commissions, rather than by separately reimbursing actual expenses.

In a ruling that will disappoint many employers, the California Supreme Court held that class action waivers in pre-employment arbitration agreements are not enforceable if a class action would be a "significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of affected employees" than individual arbitration or litigation.

Bringing California law into line with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act requires plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination to prove that they are qualified individuals," capable of performing the essential functions of a position.

The California Supreme Court has upheld an employer's profit-based incentive plan.

Caregiver discrimination has become a prominent issue in the workplace, particularly as women, who continue to act as primary caregiver for both children and elders, now comprise nearly half of the national labor force.

The federal minimum wage will increase to $5.85 per hour on July 24, 2007.

The California Supreme Court has held that meal period premiums are “wages,” not penalties.

A California Court of Appeal recently held that an employer was not entitled to summary judgment on an employee’s claim under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) where the employer failed to show that it posted a notice or otherwise informed the employee of his rights under CFRA.

The Ninth Circuit recently allowed one employer to go forward with claims against another employer based only on the competing employer’s alleged intentional interference with employment contracts.

Employers had a victory this month when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff must file her complaint with the EEOC within 180 days (or 300 days in California) after a discrete act of alleged intentional discrimination occurred.

California courts recently issued two decisions favorable to employers in defending disability discrimination/harassment cases brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

California State Assembly rejects four-day workweek.

Two recent federal cases reinforce that federal law is more lenient regarding managers being exempt from overtime requirements.

Changes to union elections provisions pending in Washington, D.C.

The DLSE has published a set of proposed regulations that are intended to clarify the requirements of Labor Law section 2802 as they relate to travel expenses.

On November 7, 2006, San Francisco voters approved Measure F, a city ordinance that requires employers to provide paid sick leave to all employees who work in the geographic boundaries of San Francisco. The ordinance takes effect February 5, 2007.

The California minimum wage has increased from $6.75 per hour to $7.50 per hour.

Certain provisions of the California Labor Code impose strict requirements for the timely payment of wages.

Effective January 1, 2007, section 515.8 has been added to the California Labor Code.

Under a 2004 state law, all employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide supervisors with at least two hours of interactive, classroom training on the subject of sexual harassment.

The California Labor Code requires that terminated employees be paid all of their earned wages (including accrued and unused vacation) at the time of termination.

A recent California Supreme Court decision confirms that the use of the term "at will" in an employment contract normally conveys an intent that employment may be ended by either party at any time without cause.

The California Supreme Court recently had occasion to interpret California's wage payment laws in the context of temporary employment.

The California Penal Code makes it unlawful to record a telephone conversation without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the conversation.

The California Supreme Court recently held that the use of sexually coarse and vulgar language in the workplace does not necessarily constitute sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").

It has long been the law in California that an employee claiming retaliation is required to prove all of the following: (a) that she engaged in protected activity, (b) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (c) that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action.