Labor Employment Law Blog

What's Happening and When in 2010

Last year brought many changes in labor and employment law. Expect more of the same in 2010. Join our experienced attorneys for an informative breakfast discussing all of the hot topics that will affect you and your employees:

On November 30, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in the matter of Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court (Randall), S163335, upholding the protection afforded confidential attorney-client communications and affirming the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship. The decision vacated a trial court ruling which ordered that a redacted attorney opinion letter to the client be produced to opposing counsel.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced the release of a new mandatory supplement to the “EEO Is The Law” poster required to be displayed by private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions and labor organizations. The new supplement, which revises the September 2002 poster, is available to be downloaded or ordered by clicking here.

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.

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.

As employers struggle in the most challenging economic climate the United States has seen since the Great Depression, they face difficult cost-cutting decisions on a daily basis in an effort to survive. Most common among those decisions is whether an employer should reduce its work force to minimize costs. It seems as if not a day goes by without employers from various business sectors deciding to reduce their work force by tens, hundreds or even thousands of employees in order to avoid having to close their doors forever.

The Swine Flu virus has obviously been in the news. If your Company has not already done so, it may wish to provide the attached information to all employees.

Click here for more information.

In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the California Labor Code applies to work performed in California by non-residents of California.

As reported by Barron's Clare McKeen, the Internal Revenue Service's new "Whistleblower Office" is open and ready for business.  If you are willing to tattle on your fellow man, the IRS is willing to pay you for the information.

The Second Circuit's ruling in Westrec Marina Management v. Arrowood Indemnity Co. is a warning to employers to report potential claims to their insurance carrier as soon as possible or face denial of coverage.  In Westrec, an employee filed a charge of discrimination against Westrec with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and requested an immediate right to sue letter.  Subsequently, her attorney sent a demand letter to Westrec asserting claims and seeking possible early settlement prior to filing a lawsuit.  At the time of the letter, Westrec failed to inform its insurer, Arrowood, of the claim.  The employee later filed a civil action, and when Westrec tendered the claim, Arrowood denied coverage.

• Ask for identification of the agent-in-charge and the prosecutor. Get business cards.
• Contact your company’s inside or outside counsel. Ask the agents to talk to your counsel.
• Request the agents not begin the search until counsel can be present.
• Read the search warrant to learn what areas may be searched and what may be seized.
• You are not required to assist, but don’t interfere and don’t hide or destroy anything.
• Don’t volunteer information about your company or employees.
• Don’t consent to a search of any location or documents not identified in the warrant.
• If possible, send employees home.
• Advise employees it’s their choice whether to be interviewed by the agents.
• Employees can require that any interview occur at another time, with a lawyer present.
• Don’t talk to the media unprepared. Tell employees to keep the search confidential.
• Before the agents leave, ask for a detailed inventory of items seized.
• Inventory and photograph all areas searched as soon as the search is over.
• Identify all persons who had contact with the agents.