Public Policy Protects An Employee From Termination For Making A Good Faith But Mistaken Claim To Overtime
This week, a California Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff employee was entitled to a full trial on his wrongful termination claim, concluding that California public policy in favor of the employer's duty to pay overtime wages protects an employee from termination for a mistaken but good faith claim to overtime wages.
Continue ReadingCalifornia Supreme Court Upholds Voluntary Employee Incentive Compensation Plan
On November 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. At issue was Citigroup's voluntary employee incentive compensation plan that provided employees with shares of restricted company stock at a reduced price in lieu of a portion of the employee's annual cash compensation. Under the Plan, the employees voluntarily agreed that, should they resign or be terminated for cause before their restricted shares of stock vest, they would forfeit the stock and the portion of cash compensation they directed be paid in the form of the restricted stock.
Continue ReadingCALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAYS EMPLOYERS CAN SAY "NO!"
The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employer may terminate an employee for using marijuana for medical purposes. In Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. the employee, Gary Ross, suffered from strain and muscle spasms in his back due to his service in the U.S. Air Force. The employer, RagingWire, offered Mr. Ross a job, but required him to take a drug test. Mr. Ross tested positive for marijuana use, and RagingWire terminated him as a result. Mr. Ross filed a lawsuit claiming that RagingWire discriminated against him on the basis of his disability and wrongfully terminated him.
Continue ReadingTERMINATION OF EMPLOYEE WHO MADE A THREAT IN THE WORKPLACE CALLED INTO QUESTION WHERE EMPLOYER'S REACTION SUGGESTED THAT STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACTUALLY PERCEIVED AS A THREAT
In Industrial Dielectric, 123 LA 822 (Arb 2006), a recent arbitration decision, an employer's immediate reaction to an employee's threatening actions towards the Vice President for Human Resources was closely scrutinized to determine whether the employer actually perceived the employee's actions as a threat. Specifically, at issue was whether termination of the employee who made threatening remarks was merely an after thought in an attempt to terminate a problem employee or a legitimate action based on an actual fear of a perceived threat. This became an issue because the Vice-President of Human Resources' actions at the time of the threat and through the time of the employee's termination contradicted the employer's contention that the actions were perceived as an actual threat.
Continue ReadingFederal Litigators Face New Burdens in E-Data Discovery
California Supreme Court Confirms At-Will Means "At Any Time"
California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For Employment "Discharge" For Imposition Of Waiting Time Penalties
Termination for Fear of Complaint is Unlawful Retaliation
In its opinion in Lujan v. Shala Minagar, filed on December 9, 2004 (Appeal No. B170438), the California Court of Appeal ruled that an employer is liable for retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 6310 when it terminates an employee out of fear that the employee may, in the future, file a workplace safety complaint with a governmental agency, even though the employee never filed a complaint with the agency.
Continue ReadingCourt Defines "Discharge" For Purposes Of Waiting Time Penalties
Smith v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (L'Oreal USA, Inc.) is an important decision for employers because it provides some clarity on the meaning of "discharge" under Labor Code Sections 201 and 203.
Continue ReadingLayoffs, Downsizing & Reductions in Force: How to Do Them Right
by Greg S. Labate
Employers are at great risk of potential liability when making decisions concerning layoffs, downsizing, and reductions in force. This article provides employers with practical information and useful tools to protect themselves from liability when making these crucial choices.
Continue Reading