Other

Subscribe to Other via RSS

Now more than ever workers are leading double lives, only not in the way that you might expect. The old distinctions of day job and night job, or office life and home life are fading to the background as we rapidly embrace a new double life: one actual and one virtual. It is almost cliché to cite statistics detailing the staggering growth of social media, but it is nevertheless instructive. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and LinkedIn boast a combined 885 million worldwide users, with Facebook accounting for 56 percent of that figure despite first reaching 250 million users just last year.[1] Facebook is currently the second most visited Internet site in the United States behind Google, while MySpace, Twitter and LinkedIn each place in the top 20.[2] Combine all social media and blog sites, and suddenly 22 percent of all time spent on the Internet is accounted for.[3] If use of social media has not already permeated your workplace, perhaps the next IT roll out should focus on ditching the dial-up modems.Continue Reading The Social Media Revolution: Recent Developments and Guidelines For Employers To Consider

In the recently published Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee could sue her employer, 99¢ Only Stores, for failure to provide “suitable” seating during her employment. Plaintiff Eugina Bright (“Bright”) was employed as a cashier by 99¢ Only Stores. She alleged that she was not provided with a seat when she worked. Bright asserted that the failure to provide her with a seat violated the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, which requires that “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” Bright further asserted that the violation of the “suitable” seating provision of the Wage Order also constituted a violation of Labor Code Section 1198, which provides: “The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the [Industrial Welfare Commission] shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” Bright sought penalties for the alleged violation of Labor Code Section 1198 under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), which provides a penalty for the violation of any section of the Labor Code for which a civil penalty is not otherwise provided.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Allows Lawsuit Against An Employer For Allegedly Failing To Provide An Employee With “Suitable” Seating

Ending an investigation launched more than a year ago, on September 24, 2010, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice entered into an agreement with Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp., Adobe Systems Inc., Intuit Inc. and Pixar Animation settling charges that the companies’ bilateral agreements prohibiting cold-calling of their employees violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In a complaint also filed on September 24th, the Division alleges that the companies compete for highly skilled technical employees and that their concerted behavior "reduced their ability to compete for employees and disrupted normal price-setting mechanisms that apply in the labor setting." U.S. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Complaint, online. The Division contends the agreements are facially anticompetitive because "they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract high tech employees" and "substantially diminished competition to the detriment of high tech employees who were likely deprived of important information and access to better job opportunities."
 Continue Reading Silicon Valley Firms Settle DOJ Hiring Practices Charges, But Are No-Solicitation Agreements Per Se Illegal?

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.Continue Reading Labor & Employment Law Update & Happy Hour – Fall 2010

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.Continue Reading California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training Webinar

In Solis v. Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc., a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s decision to enforce a preliminary order by the Department of Labor (“DOL” or “Department”) to reinstate an alleged whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). The court avoided determining whether it had authority under SOX to enforce preliminary orders, instead deciding the case based on the “balance of harms” test that applies in all cases seeking preliminary injunctive relief.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Skirts Jurisdictional Issue in Denying Reinstatement to Alleged SOX Whistleblower

Dukes v. Wal-Mart: Should I Be Doing Something to Help My Company Avoid Becoming the Next Class Action Discrimination Target?

July 13, 2010
12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. – Program & Lunch
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
650 Town Center Drive, Fourth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Please join our experienced panel for an informative and lively discussion on this timely topic. Our panel includes top economists who have been on the firing line of many of these big discrimination class actions.Continue Reading Dukes v. Wal-Mart – Orange County

Mutual fund companies have traditionally argued that they are exempt from the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) because the funds themselves do not have any employees. Massachusetts District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock soundly rejected that argument in a ruling issued March 31 and, in so doing, may have opened the door to a tidal wave of whistleblower suits against mutual fund companies.Continue Reading Recent Court Ruling Exposes Mutual Funds to Whistleblower Suits

The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Department”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have dramatically stepped up their enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). Perhaps the most noteworthy development this year was the first ever FCPA sting in which Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) agents posed as agents representing foreign government officials and solicited bribes from executives in the defense and law enforcement products industry. However, less sensational enforcement efforts—including investigations arising out of industry-wide probes and self-reporting—continue to be a focus for the DOJ and reports of more investigations surface seemingly every week. Most recently it has come to light that Australian natural resources firm, BHP Billiton, is under investigation by the SEC for possible violations of the FCPA, as well as by officials from the United Kingdom for possible corruption stemming from their operations in Cambodia and elsewhere.Continue Reading Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Update