Labor Employment Law Blog

On June 29, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law California's Electronic Discovery Act, which is effective immediately. All discovery propounded or responded to must now comply with the new law. These rules are very similar to the recent revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and bring California in line with the federal e-discovery standards.

The anti-SLAPP statute (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, is commonly used outside the employment litigation context to test the merits of a lawsuit at an early stage in the litigation. A recent case, McConnell v. Innovative Artists Talent and Literary Agency, Inc. illustrates the hesitation of courts to allow these motions in employment litigation.

On June 29, 2009, a California Court of Appeal enforced an employer's vacation plan as it was written rather than as the employee asked the Court to interpret it. Accordingly, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims.

On June 26, 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that the current Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 (Rev. 02/02/09) linked below will remain valid for usage beyond its current expiration date of 06/30/2009 by employers in verifying the employment eligibility of employees.

A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal should give employers pause before they use California's trade secret laws to try to stifle competition in violation of California law. 

In the case of FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision by the trial court awarding $1,641,216.78 in attorneys’ fees and costs to two former employees who successfully defended a trade secret action brought by their former employer. The Court agreed with the trial court that the action was filed and maintained in bad faith within the meaning of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
 

On June 2, 2009, the California Court of Appeal in San Diego issued a decision clarifying California's rules regarding tip-sharing among employees. In doing so, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court which had awarded the plaintiff class $86 million in restitution.

A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California provides important insight for employers in how to properly draft intellectual property assignment provisions that comply with California law.

In 1978, Congress passed an amendment to Title VII making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related conditions. The amendment, also known as the "Pregnancy Discrimination Act" ("PDA"), went into effect in 1979. This week, the United States Supreme Court held that it is not generally impermissible for an employer to apply a bona fide seniority system (a scheme having no discriminatory terms that allots additional rights and benefits to employees relative to their length of creditable employment) in effect prior to 1979 to pregnancy leaves taken prior to 1979—even if that seniority system would violate the PDA if enacted today.

In an effort to satisfy customers and maintain a desired company image, many employers have dress and grooming policies. As a general rule, employers are legally allowed to establish reasonable dress and grooming requirements that serve legitimate business interests. However, two recent cases remind employers that there are limits on what grooming standards employers can impose on employees.

In World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District rejected an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike in a breach of contract, theft of trade secrets, and unfair competition case. The defendants moved to strike the complaint under California's Anti-SLAPP statute, claiming that their activities in soliciting the customers and employees of their previous employer were protected speech involving a "matter of public interest," namely their pursuit of employment under the public policies expressed in California Business and Professions Code section 16600 (California's prohibition against restraint of trade). The court upheld the trial court's denial of the motion, finding that solicitation of customers in a business context was not protected activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.