Labor Employment Law Blog

In a recent decision involving a deaf employee’s professed need for a sign language interpreter to understand and participate in mandatory departmental meetings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reaffirmed that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), an appropriate “reasonable accommodation” must be effective to enable a covered employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.

The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203, § 342) contains sweeping new diversity requirements for federal agencies involved in the financial sector, as well as the businesses which deal with those agencies. Although the deadline for the creation of the new bureaucracy required by the Act is not until January 2011, and additional rules and standards will be developed later, businesses that will be affected by the new legislation need to begin educating themselves regarding its scope and requirements.

In Louie Hung Kwei Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., et al., S171442, the California Supreme Court concluded that California Labor Code Section 351 does not provide a private cause of action for employees to recover any misappropriated tips from employers.

Last week, the California Supreme Court decided Reid v. Google, Inc. This case is yet another reminder to California employers that it is worth their while to train their employees and supervisors to be cautious about what they say and what they put into writing in emails, memos, and so on. The case also illustrates the critical importance of employers being able to articulate the precise reasons why an employee is being terminated, communicating those exact reasons to the employee, and having documentation to prove all this in the event of litigation.

A California Court of Appeal has recently held that a subsequent employer can be liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy for firing a new employee when her prior employer attempted to enforce an unenforceable non-compete agreement.

In Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's judgment awarding Mattel ownership rights to the Bratz brand of dolls. This decision was reached, in part, on a finding that the trial court erred in ruling that the employment agreement between Mattel and former employee Carter Bryant, assigned Bryant's "ideas" to Mattel.

Primarily as a result of the recent dramatic increase in the U.S. government's enforcement effort, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has received a great deal of attention of late. The financial reform legislation signed by President Obama on July 21, 2010 adds an incentive that will likely further increase the dangers posed to companies and individuals by the FCPA. The law contains a provision that will reward whistleblowers who voluntarily provide information leading to the successful enforcement of U.S. securities laws, including the FCPA, with between 10% and 30% of any recovery over $1,000,000. The whistleblower must provide "original" information, not already known to the SEC and not merely derived from existing investigations, audits, or reports. The SEC will have discretion to set the amount within the 10% - 30% range, based on the significance of the information to the success of the action, the whistleblower's degree of assistance, and the interest of the SEC in using whistleblower payments to deter problematic conduct in the future. The provision also extends the reward to "related actions" taken by other prosecuting agencies based on the reported information, and thus will apply to actions initiated by the DOJ and other federal, state, and foreign law enforcement agencies.

Our New, Improved, and FREE Breakfast With Your Labor Lawyer (in the Evening!)

2010 has brought numerous developments in labor and employment involving legislation, enforcement activity, and court decisions. Please join our experienced attorneys for an informative and lively discussion regarding recent activity & developments in labor & employment law.

If you or a colleague missed it the first time, fear not... we are reprising our Sexual Harassment Training for clients who missed our in-person seminar on this topic.

WHEN: August 18, 2010, 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
SPEAKERS: Ronda Jamgotchian and Jason Kearnaghan, Sheppard Mullin 
WHERE: From any computer anywhere via WebEx.

In two opinions published on July 7, 2010, the Second and Fourth Districts of the California Court of Appeal refused to allow two objectors to derail two different class action settlements. In these two wage and hour class actions, the objectors challenged the proposed settlements on fairness grounds, and the courts once again affirmed the deferential review standard while rejecting the objectors arguments.