Library Search
-
Back to the Center? The Governator Puts His Stamp -- and the Brakes -- on California's Employment Legislation in 2004 ( February 2005 )
With the recall of Democratic Governor Gray Davis, and the installation of Arnold Schwarzenegger as his successor late last year, employers expected a change in approach to Sacramento's ever-increasing legislation of the workplace in the Golden State. The employers' expectations have been met -- and how! -
Texas Supreme Court Limits Emotional Distress Claims ( February 2005 )
On August 27, 2004, the Texas Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Zeltwanger. This decision has resulted in a significant change in Texas law on intentional infliction of emotional distress claims — a change that is favorable to employers. The case had garnered substantial publicity as a result of the eight-figure judgment against the employer (Roche). -
Sexual Harassment: An Ounce Of Corporate Prevention ( September 2004 )
Sexual harassment has receive widespread media attention over the past few years, first attaining national recognition with Anita Hill's testimony at the confirmation hearings of United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and culminating with a jury verdict of $7,000,000 in the case involving a secretary's claims against a partner in the California law firm of Baker & Mackenzie. -
Protecting Your Organization From Expanding Workplace Harassment And Retaliation Liability ( May 2004 )
Several 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decisions emphasized that every employer MUST develop company policies on sexual and other forms of harassment. As part of the policy it should be stated that such behavior will not be tolerated, and shall serve as a basis for termination. -
In a highly anticipated decision for employment lawyers and their clients, on November 24, 2003, the California Supreme Court ruled in <i>State Department of Health Services v. McGinnis</i> that California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) imposes strict liability on employers for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor. However, the Court also gave some hope to employers having to defend such cases.
-
New California Employment Laws effective January 1, 2004 ( March 2004 )
The California legislature and Governor Davis were very active this recall election year in passing legislation that increased the cost of employers’ doing business in California by establishing new employee rights and levying penalties on employers. The most notable new enactment creates a private attorney general statute that will encourage employees to sue to recover civil fines and penalties for wage and hour violations. -
The Customer Is Always Right And, In California, TheCompany May Always Be Liable: AB 76 Makes EmployersResponsible For Unlawful Harassment By Non-employees ( November 2003 )
On the eve of the recent Gubernatorial Recall Election, after sexual harassment allegations surfaced regarding his opponent, outgoing California Governor Davis signed into law Assembly Bill 76, making employers potentially liable for the unlawful harassment of their employees on the basis of sex or any other protected status by a customer, client, contractor or any other non-employee-third party over whom the employer may have no control. -
Supreme Court Rules On Evidentiary Matters Involving Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Cases ( January 2003 )
Employers generally realize that trying a 'mixed-motive"discrimination lawsuit in front of a jury may be risky; it is expensive, the stakes may be high and the outcome uncertain. The U. S. Supreme Court's recent ruling may change this dynamic in mixed-motive cases as more cases may survive summary judgment and reach a jury based on circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive -
Cyberspace Harassment ( April 2003 )
Employers face new challenges attempting to prevent harassment and discrimination in the work place. Access to the Internet has become commonplace permitting employees access to explicit and harassing cyberspace material. -
Harassment of the Disabled: A Workplace Issue ( January 2003 )
Claims under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) traditionally have focused on adverse employment decisions such as terminations or challenged working conditions or assignments. Recently, however, ADA plaintiffs have been adding claims for harassment because of their disability.
Ads by FindLaw