Labor & Employment Law Blog

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as recently faced with a question of first impression under the federal Workers’ Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act — whether  employees who leave a job because a business is closing have “voluntarily departed” within the meaning of the statute. In Collins v. Gee West Seattle, LLC issued January 21, 2011, the court answered the ...

In a spate of recent activity, the federal National Labor Relations Board and U.S. Department of Transportation have issued proposed regulations that would affect employers in the transportation and other industries affecting interstate commerce.  The proposed regulations are:

On December 9, 2010, the California Second District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a United Parcel Service supervisor for unpaid overtime and missed meal and rest breaks, on the ground that he was employed in an exempt position under California law. The court in Taylor v. UPS held that both the executive and administrative exemptions applied, since the supervisor was primarily engaged in management-related duties which qualified for application of each of the exemptions.

In a case of first impression, in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, the California Court of Appeal held an employee may seek Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") penalties for alleged violations of an Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") wage order requirement that employers provide employees suitable seats in the workplace when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats. The court rejected the employer's argument that PAGA penalties are available only for violations of wage payment laws and concluded such penalties are available for violation of nonwage labor standards contained in the IWC's wage orders.

Adding to the body of case law that has been developed pending the Supreme Court's decision in the Brinker Restaurant case, a California appellate last week sided with the employer's arguments they need only “provide” meal periods under state law and not “ensure” that they are taken. The court in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill accordingly upheld an order denying certification of a proposed meal ...

In the case of Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corp. published on October 20, 2010, a California appellate court refused to enforce an arbitration provision in an employment contract on the ground that it contained multiple unconscionable provisions. By permitting it to pursue injunctive relief in court, and by including a provision in the agreement requiring that the prevailing party be awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs, the employer forfeited its ability to enforce the agreement when the employee sued for discrimination and wrongful termination.

In a long-awaited decision, the National Labor Relations Board held that a union’s display of a peaceful stationary banner at the location of an employer with whom it had no dispute did not violate the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Likening such activity to the mere distribution of handbills that was found lawful by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1988 decision in Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. Trades, the Board concluded that the bannering merely attempted to “persuade” members of the public to assist it in its objectives, and not to “coerce” or “restrain” anyone in violation of the law.

Last week, in a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court handed employers a setback by holding that age-related comments by non-decision makers can be relevant and admissible as evidence in age discrimination cases. In the case of Reid v. Google, Inc., the Court specifically rejected the "stray remarks doctrine," by which any remarks made by non-decision making co-workers or decision-making supervisors outside the decisional process were deemed irrelevant and insufficient to support an age discrimination claim.

In one of the first decisions interpreting the legal enforceability of California’s anti-labor injunction statute, a California appellate court held on July 19, 2010 that the law did not prevent a grocery store from obtaining an injunction against a union for picketing on its private property. The court specifically held that the statute, Labor Code section 1138.1, was unconstitutional as applied to that dispute because it conferred greater legal protection on picketing than other forms of speech, and declared labor protests on private property to be legal even though a similar protest concerning a different issue would constitute trespassing.

Sometimes, in refusal to hire cases, older applicants argue that they were victims of age discrimination if they were not offered job interviews or considered for the position applied for. In the case of Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. filed July 9, 2010, a California appellate court rejected just such a claim, in the case of a transportation company who hired a younger attorney for an in-house general counsel position based on a favorable general impression and a recommendation from a known colleague.