Labor & Employment Law Blog

As employers increasingly consider adopting mandatory arbitration agreements for employment disputes following last year’s Supreme Court decision upholding class arbitration waivers in Concepcion, there is an increasing need to review old agreements and policies contained in Employee Handbooks to ensure that they do not render such attempts futile. Nowhere was this demonstrated more clearly than in the recent decision in Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services, issued on July 31, 2012, in which the court denied the enforcement of a policy requiring arbitration because of its inclusion in a handbook which contained general language permitting an employer to change its terms unilaterally and stating that it was “not an agreement.”

As we previously reported here, a report issued by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, shows that employment cases were the most frequently filed class actions, representing 29.3% of the class actions filed and that over half of the employment cases filed alleged violations of Labor Code provisions governing payment of wages, rest and meal periods, and related claims. This is consistent with our experience representing numerous employers against such class action lawsuits.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed a test for determining whether an employee who is engaged in activities which are protected by the National Labor Relations Act loses that protection by engaging in overly confrontational and inappropriate conduct toward his or employer.In the recent case of Plaza Auto Center v. NLRB, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NLRB misapplied ...

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed a test for determining whether an employee who is engaged in activities which are protected by the National Labor Relations Act loses that protection by engaging in overly confrontational and inappropriate conduct toward his or employer. In the recent case of Plaza Auto Center v. NLRB, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NLRB misapplied this test in ordering an employee who engaged in such conduct to be reinstated to his job as a used car salesman in Yuma, Arizona.

In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Court of Appeal held that evidence of employee or job applicant wrongdoing discovered after an allegedly discriminatory termination or refusal to hire that would have caused the employer to terminate the employee or to refuse to hire the employee can be a complete defense to claims for alleged wrongful termination, to claims for alleged discriminatory refusal to hire, and to claims for alleged failure to reasonably accommodate an alleged disability. 

In another of several recent decisions in class action cases issued by California appellate courts, the Second District Court of Appeal last week upheld the denial of class certification in a case brought on behalf of accountants for unpaid overtime. (Soderstedt v. CBIZ, July 7, 2011).  The court found that because the responsibilities of each of the alleged class members differed with their levels of experience, the particular engagements they worked on, the clients and clients’ industries, and the other accountants they worked with, common questions of law and fact did not predominate and the proposed class could not be certified.

In the case of Best Friends Animal Society v. Macerich Westside Pavilion Property, LLC decided March 2, 2011, the California Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether a privately owned shopping mall can enforce rules that give preferential treatment to persons engaged in labor speech on their premises. The court held that it could not, and that such rules violate the state Constitution by discriminating against other types of speech.

In Karena Wherry v. Award, Inc., Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of appeal held that the standards applicable to arbitration agreements between an employee and an employer apply also to arbitration agreements between an independent contractor and the contracting “employer.” 

In another case brought by the Ralph’s grocery chain challenging the enforceability of California’s anti-labor injunction statutes, a California appellate court held on January 27, 2011 that Labor Code Sections 527.3 and 1138.1 are unconstitutional because they grant greater free speech rights in “public forums” to unions engaged in labor disputes than are allowed to others. In Ralphs Grocery Co. v. U.F. C. W. Local 8, the court overturned an order denying a preliminary injunction to Ralph’s based on the application of those statutes, which severely limit the ability of courts to issue injunctions during labor disputes and impose onerous requirements on private property owners which seek to enjoin union, picketing on their premises.

Is the fiancé of an employee who has made a sex discrimination charge against her employer protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal anti-discrimination law? Yes, said the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Thompson v. North American Steel decided January 24, 2011.

The case was filed by Eric Thompson, who was terminated three weeks after his bride-to-be Miriam Regalado filed a charge with ...